The New Epigenetic Lie: How Easily a Failure Becomes a Friend

_{Cornelius Hunter
March 19, 2016

Epigenetics, Evolution, Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Epigenetics
Evolution
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In graduate school I had an evolution professor who made the absurd claim that he had solved the protein folding problem—one of the most challenging conundrums in molecular biology. And did he have any examples? No, that was left to the student. It was embarrassing. At another time he referenced a proof of evolution. But again, it was a hollow claim. Unfortunately this sort of phony science is what evolution is all about. The latest example is in how evolutionists are handling epigenetics. Read more

Comments

Gary at # 51: to me- 'you are describing “blind faith.”' In the context of the Judaeo-Christian faith, the movement is certainly not centred round blind faith. It all started from an encounter of a mysterious kind, repeatedly reported by honest people, we trust, and demonstrated throughout history. A super intelligent being communicated through His word and power. Such reporting, in truth, must have the same validity as any scientific documentation dealing with origins, and the end game. You said previously, Genesis is the first attempt at a scientific understanding. Relative to the believed super intelligent word given at Sinai, it is not; as a super intelligence pointed in stone back to Genesis with containing condensed supernatural key truths. We certainly agree, needed is a better explanation than the present consensus science, which, by the way, without doubt, demonstrates true blind faith in its major axioms. However, relative to what? And as you rightly point out, how do we know which religion is true or contains some truth? Ultimately, perhaps there is another reason for that situation to prevail? Nevertheless, the ID movement, does some sterling work while encompassing or accommodating a wide range of beliefs, with a core principle that intelligent design clearly exists. That is a strength. Of course, because of the very nature of origins, the straw man called consensus science, must be fed with shredded scripture. Otherwise, we can't play Darwinian cricket, and are deemed unworthy to bat. Therefore the ID movement becomes tarred with the same brush by the prevailing Prince of this world, strict material evolutionism. That does not invalidate the major principle of ID. Still, the fact remains, as per Genesis; humans are basically grounded firmly in "dirt," containing minerals, etc. Vegetables and animals all live off "dirt" grown food. We live basically live off them, and by breathing. Minerals are embedded in our skeleton, etc. Nevertheless, many also live off spiritual understandings. A super intelligent source saw fit to ground us in such; that is, our soul/spirit containing a particle of that pure intelligence, marvelously and so fearfully generated in simultaneous complexity in relation to humans. Of course we need to understand as much as possible, but there must be a limit. However, materialistic science dealing with origins sees no limit; in my understanding, but limits the freedom in education to even discuss the major limitations of material and theistic evolutionism. Things have to change. As for genetics, that from “dirt” coded information results haphazardly by unintelligent means, via a mysterious consensus selector, is “scientific” nonsense: not provable, hence a faith based science; a pseudo science. Hell awaits in various forms if you dare utter such “blasphemy” against the new “prophet” Darwin, creator of humans in the image of knuckle draggers. As for the science of time-space, as an eternal intelligence existed, we may believe, you cannot discount the possibility that eternal time exists, and in eternal space. Just because you may want to chop that hypothesis out of existence, such will not lead to the best understanding of origins. What is needed, is true science, one broadminded enough to encompass other possibilities, and allow criticism of the present flawed consensus science. Until this principle can be tackled, the education pit will just get bigger.mw_{March 23, 2016
March
03
Mar
23
23
2016
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PST}

In trying out a new quote format: rohn:
I’m certain that you probably know my answer to this. First, I understand that science cannot answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence (assuming you believe the universe had a beginning)
The only evidence I have is that science actually can answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence. We just don't know how yet. My Methodist training taught that our Creator always existed, does not need a beginning. How that is possible is not known but that's how it turns out to be when you do. I like to try figuring out that one. Not that it rules out there having been a beginning of the universe. Conservation of matter and Big Bang Theory favors an oscillating 3D wave where there is a singularity at the zero crossing, into the other half of the cycle. rohn:
therefore, we are entering other realms of investigation.
The theory I have describes a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels working as one. And they are related in a Father, Son, Holy Spirit way. Religious imagination is sometimes useful. There is no scientific conflict at all that I know of with that sort of religious thinking being applied to science. It's just that science requires scientific models. Not really having one makes a worded theory for it impossible to write. The Darwinian antiquating model must first be there, or it's only a great example of putting the cart before the horse. Just before the release of the Ben Stein movie Expelled it came to me that I could in time put that situation right, by starting with I already had from the early 90's where the levels of intelligence into the behavior of matter were explained as they are now. But before then I just wanted the Discovery Institute to stop with the religious politics in place of a scientific theory, I knew they did not have. I literally over-night went from trying to make the Theory of Intelligent Design gone to having to for the sake of science make sure that it never does. What a change of scenery for me that was! rohn:
However, I believe there are other avenues of investigation outside of science which provide evidence for a transcendent eternal cause.
You have to start where you can in science, then search on from there. Going outside of science for evidence only takes you further off the path that you need to never stray from when developing a serious model and theory. Making exceptions is a total science stopper. A convenient excuse for not even trying. When real scientific theory comes along the philosophizing works just fine, no sense complicating things with cognitive science and all that. Several million dollars a year rolls into the institute while the guy stuck with the ID science work goes broke. That is not right but that's what happens when you make compromises that lower your standards to allow accepting evidence outside of science as being scientific.GaryGaulin_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PST}

Of course, neither can I prove or disprove that an intelligence agency created life. Why not; because some things can only be ultimately understood through belief in a super intelligent word.
How would you know which of the many religious beliefs to choose from (if any) is accurate? You are describing "blind faith".
What is the ultimate end of your hypothesis Gary, an Omega type point?
My working hypothesis is still "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I'm making wonderful progress scientifically understanding how "intelligent cause" works. It is fair to metaphorically call that "a super intelligent word". You are then essentially correct about such a thing existing. But without a scientific model/theory to show how they/it/He/She works you have no way to (in your mind model) visualize a trinity of intelligence levels that are emergent from the same place consciousness comes from, which all together adds up to a very respectable super-intelligent designer producing the said intelligent designs.GaryGaulin_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PST}

GG @ 46 I hope you won’t mind continuing our discussion a bit further. You said, “If the universe had to be designed by an intelligent cause then the stretch only gets much greater after trying to explain who or what designed the intelligent agent/causer/God.” I’m certain that you probably know my answer to this. First, I understand that science cannot answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence (assuming you believe the universe had a beginning) therefore, we are entering other realms of investigation. If the Law of Causality posits that a cause must be equal to or greater than the effect, then the cause of the existence of the universe must be equal to or greater than the universe. Is it unreasonable then, to believe this transcendent cause (existing outside of time, space, matter/energy) would be ultra-intelligent, ultra-powerful, and eternal? We can only know anything about this transcendent cause if it is revealed to us by the cause. Since we are getting into the realm of metaphysics and this is primarily a science blog I will end by commenting on your, “It is very possible that living things would do much better in a universe that is even more “fine tuned” for life. With this universe being the only one we know there is still no way to know, either way.” Since we do not know all there is to know about anything, I believe that our idea of what a perfectly fine-tuned universe would be like compared with the characteristics that a transcendent cause might ‘think’ is perfect is a bit presumptuous (no offense meant). We do not know all of the parameters let alone their optimal settings or interrelationships as you alluded to in the second sentence. However, I believe there are other avenues of investigation outside of science which provide evidence for a transcendent eternal cause.rohn_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PST}

Gary #47: "Fault"? I am simply following your reasoning openly posted on uncommon descent, as you followed mine. A question, how much information can a human mind contain and be needed to process all functions of its own genetic and multiple regulatory mechanisms consciously. How much greater capacity needed, to know and regulate the laws of the Universe, for the order clearly visible in nature, if such a mind exists? The point; human science dealing with history is still shrouded in mystery, which must touch upon philosophy and religion. Even the number zero, cannot have evolved in some theoretical big bang. Therefore, it must have eternally existed in principle. Besides, the basis of life has never been established scientifically; infallible by rigorously confirming experimentation; humans can get life forms from dust and atmospherics, every time. Of course, neither can I prove or disprove that an intelligence agency created life. Why not; because some things can only be ultimately understood through belief in a super intelligent word. Though signs of such intelligence must exist if such a super intelligence exists and if a higher intelligence is at work. Why, because we do not need to know everything, that is left to the super intelligence, from which human intelligence was born. Still, what if we all had evolved into knowing everything, with our nature as it is, and without an existing prior super intelligence? Which fittest god-man/woman would prevail? The fittest to do good or evil? Eternal hell, or eternal peace? What is the ultimate end of your hypothesis Gary, an Omega type point? Thank you for your thoughts.mw_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST}

rohn: We can only look at the scientific evidence and our common experience in identifying intelligently caused phenomena and infer design by intelligence. If we have a purported artifact, then there is an implied causal relationship from the artist to the art to the artifact. We can therefore investigate the who, what, when, where, why, and how. The more evidence supporting answers to these questions, the stronger our confidence in a conclusion that the object is an artifact.Zachriel_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

mw:
You certainly hammer home your point, only scientific answers will do, or they have little or no value; so it seems.
It's not my fault that only scientific answers will do in a discussion about (what is supposed to be) a "scientific theory".GaryGaulin_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PST}

Rohn:
Is it such a stretch then to believe that the universe (almost infinitely more complex than the “heads”) was designed by an intelligent cause, even though we may not know the ‘how’?
If the universe had to be designed by an intelligent cause then the stretch only gets much greater after trying to explain who or what designed the intelligent agent/causer/God. It is very possible that living things would do much better in a universe that is even more "fine tuned" for life. With this universe being the only one we know there is still no way to know, either way. Computer models may in the future be able to answer that, but it's currently not technologically possible. And you're welcome, for the time. I love your challenge!GaryGaulin_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PST}

Hi Gary # 43. You certainly hammer home your point, only scientific answers will do, or they have little or no value; so it seems. Let’s see; the Judaeo-Scriptures, the Koran, and the teachings of the Buddha, were all built on an experience or experiences as in the former case, beyond human science. And, talking about Easter, when the resurrection of the carpenter God-Man shook the natural cognitive order of perceptions, and opened up another world (heaven). A carpenter; devoid of a PhD, a professorial chair, or an English basic O Level, who said He was "the way, the truth, and the life" ( Jn 14:6): scientifically, how, or on what basis, do we test the value of that qualified assertion, that is, qualified by miracles. Nevertheless, Darwin said in his autobiography, that those who believed in miracles were “ignorant,” to an incredible degree; including believing the Gospels. The Old Testament “manifestly false history:” no “sane” person would believe such religion: ref, pp. 85-96, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=1 Still, Darwin ‘knew’ as an historical fact that we came from monkey types. Yet, who would trust the mind of a higher intelligence, a God who, according to Christian theistic consensus science/belief, builds our minds on “monkey’s” brains! Even Darwin saw the irony of his theory, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-13230.xml As for Darwin’s appeal to design, that is, design in nature actually means no actual design, must rank as the biggest con ever, the biggest powerful delusion humans self inflict on ourselves. Ref, Darwin's "one long argument," http://www.plosin.com/work/OneLongArgument.htmlmw_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST}

I agree with you. I have minimal trainng in science (2 yrs of college) so I'm not an expert. What I'm trying to get to is the FACT that we do not KNOW 100% that the "heads" of Easter Island were made by intelligent causes. We can only look at the scientific evidence and our common experience in identifying intelligently caused phenomena and infer design by intelligence. Is there ANY evidence (scientific or otherwise) that allows us to say that the "heads" MAY have arose by some other means? Is it such a stretch then to believe that the universe (almost infinitely more complex than the "heads") was designed by an intelligent cause, even though we may not know the 'how'? I understand that science only deals with phenomena that can be measured empirically. But knowledge arrives by various other means as well. To eliminate a possible explanation simply because it is not in the realm of science (I'm not saying you specifically are doing this), when the scientific evidence points to a cause outside of science, is not "following the evidence WHEREVER it may lead". It takes a bit of faith to believe that the "heads" were created by a intelligent cause. We do not know HOW they were made (chisel & hammer?) but the consensus is based on scientific (and other) evidence that they were made by an intelligent agent. Thanks for you time and have a great day.rohn_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PST}

Rohn, both you and I must have good scientific arguments to explain how the said "intelligence" works or else reasonable people cannot take either of us seriously. It is incredibly unscientific to leave the causer (mechanism) of "intelligent cause" to the imagination. If you were taught otherwise then by whom? I normally have no problem at all being taken seriously by scientists. But that is because I have applicable experience in cognitive science and do not leave "intelligent cause" to the imagination.GaryGaulin_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PST}

GG @ 41 I do not. I was just wondering how scientists (or anyone) can infer the best explaination for the existence of the stone "heads" of Easter Island is intelligent humans, but the existence of super complexity in a living cell (let alone the universe) could arise without intelligence.rohn_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST}

Human statue designers have been well documented. An entire army of statues was found buried. They are useful for frightening enemy invaders away and showing off the wealth and power of a ruler. Do you have scientific evidence that aliens or a religious deity created the stone “heads” of Easter Island?GaryGaulin_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST}

GG @ 38 What evidence?rohn_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST}

GG # 37. "Apparently after men took over religion." That is why today, the Father sends a "powerful delusion" (2 Thess 2:9-11), for we have more or less, basically intellectually crucified Jesus God-Man and let loose Barabbas Charlie Darwin, who is made 'full of grace and favour' by fallen men. It cannot go unnoticed. How would we know if we were or not under such a God sent intellectual flooding, because in free will we want it so, therefore, in justice He is simply reinforcing our free will. Giving us what we want? Christians should teach in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).mw_{March 22, 2016
March
03
Mar
22
22
2016
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PST}

rohn asks:
GaryGaulin How did the stone “heads” of Easter Island come to be?
Evidence strongly indicates that the "heads" were carved from stone, by humans. Therefore the stone “heads” of Easter Island are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.GaryGaulin_{March 21, 2016
March
03
Mar
21
21
2016
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PST}

mw:
However, there is a supernatural to natural understanding, that is, Jesus/God, addressed God in the “Lord’s prayer,” as “Our Father.”
In the old testament Genesis 1:26 speaks of God in the plural form, no gender:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
From what I know God was first considered to be a female who gave (virgin) birth to all living things. There may be a hint of the earlier belief system in Genesis 3:20:
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Apparently after men took over religion God was made a He, and the virgin mother of all living things was demoted to only giving virgin birth to Jesus. There is some info in this informative documentary that has more than one part to it but they are all worth watching: The Burning Times Documentary - Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqRir6a3VHkGaryGaulin_{March 21, 2016
March
03
Mar
21
21
2016
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PST}

Gary # 33; you say: “There is also no scientific way to qualify our creator as a ‘He’ and some woman say He’s really a ‘She' while logically speaking our creator should embody both, so perhaps both are right.” However, there is a supernatural to natural understanding, that is, Jesus/God, addressed God in the “Lord's prayer,” as “Our Father.” As there can only be one God; from Genesis, in the beginning, God created in His own image, male and female, in one day. Now I know this seems impossible to fallen human nature. However, that does not make it impossible. Therefore, God is our Father and Mother, in terms of male and female. Yahweh names Himself to Moses as “I am” (Exod 3:14). When Jesus did the same; calling Himself “I am,”(Jn 8:58); that is, equal to Yahweh; He set the ball rolling for His crucifixion. That, and when He rose Lazarus from the dead. To refresh, you say, “there is also no scientific way to qualify our creator, as ‘He,’” Surely that is overlooking the obvious. Jesus said he was God, and He was scientifically male in His Human Nature. Such a God appears to have also a Created Nature/Uncreated Nature. And if we take this in context of belief in the Holy Trinity, things simple become beyond our understanding. Still, if we find the Adam and Eve scenario difficult, boy, it is super difficult to believe that every life form in the world, before it died, in its life time; through common descent; evolution had evolved a corresponding mate for every life form. Basically, such is a Darwinian miracle, or a good fudge to gloss over an impossibility; the Darwin Credo.mw_{March 21, 2016
March
03
Mar
21
21
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PST}

GaryGaulin How did the stone "heads" of Easter Island come to be?rohn_{March 21, 2016
March
03
Mar
21
21
2016
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

Thanks GG # 31 for your comments, however, I still do not understand your reference to V.J.T. You say:- "I believe that the two accounts in Genesis are an early example of human written science." And, "And the issue of which faith makes the most sense usually results in bloody wars, so I’m glad that science does not require that either." The two accounts in Genesis, are better read, in my opinian, as the second is an extension of expansion of the first; just as the first statement in the Bible is followed by an elaboration that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis contains, in condensed form, key truths of the Universe we inhabit, in order to understand powers beyhond our understanding, but nevertheless which interacts with us. Gary, you take Genesis as an attempt at scientific understanding. However, it is at Sinai where the first historic evidence of a super science with miraculous power was demonstrated, pointing back to the key truths of the cosmos in Genesis, by the finger of Yahweh in stone. The Decalogue, sets down round thunder and lightening, upheld in the forming of an historic nation, and miraculously through continuous miracles over the proceeding 40 years; by weekly food on the dot, continual signs of a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. The foundation of the Judaeo-Christian faith was and remains round miracles, not human science, because human science cannot compute a miracle, by any means. As for bloody wars; the "science" of Darwinism led to the ideology of Marx, Lennon, and Hitler, etc., see http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism As for Jesus, he even made whole the ear of a soldier, which Peter had cut off; and God would not let David, build the first Temple personally, as he had been a man of war. It its to the Christian movements everlasting shame, it has not basically practised the teaching of its founder. And that now includes believing that through Him creation came about in six days. Jesus stated, as God in part and God in whole (Jn 8:58), that the Commandments were unbendable (Matt 5:17-18). And Jesus should know, as He gave them at Sinai, as one God; so some believe. Still; science, the builder of the first atomic bomb. And many other destructive implements of war. What gladness such science brings! Of course, there is true beneficial science. Darwinism is not true science, because it incorporates a belief system of Darwin's own; common descent. Then of course, we have the scientific technology that destroys human life forms, while on living life support machines: that is abortion. Bloody wars indeed, world-wide. Of course, epigenetics gives credence to the commandment concerning the sins of the Father's being passed on.mw_{March 21, 2016
March
03
Mar
21
21
2016
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PST}

mw:
However, invincible science in relation to historic origins? Have we a spare cosmos to test any historic-clad scenarios? The invincible ‘Chief Scientist,’ so to speak; at the time, was the only three in one present, some believe. And we know what He said and wrote.
I believe that the two accounts in Genesis are an early example of human written science. It was close enough for the period of time that they served and still works today for the ID theory I have, but Genesis should not be taken overly literally or as the last word. There is also no scientific way to qualify our creator as a "He" and some woman say He's really a "She" while logically speaking our creator should embody both, so perhaps both are right. In any event religion has a way of complicating matters even worse with there being so many different ways to explain much the same thing. At least in science no gender needs to be assigned to our creator, where as in religion it would only be a long argument where some husbands end up having to cook their own supper for being insulting to women. And the issue of which faith makes the most sense usually results in bloody wars, so I'm glad that science does not require that either.GaryGaulin_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PST}

I am not too sure what you mean GG #31, and also in relation to V.J.Torley:- 'In this case we only have to be invincible in science, where progress can be measured by how many like V.J.Torley are then fairly able to say “I told you so!”' However, invincible science in relation to historic origins? Have we a spare cosmos to test any historic-clad scenarios? The invincible 'Chief Scientist,' so to speak; at the time, was the only three in one present, some believe. And we know what He said and wrote. Even evolutionists cannot do away with faith in such consensus science. Though they will not admit it by and large. Oh for honest evolutionism, by this I mean, to admit the theory is not fact; that is, in some major aspects, and is certainly not a scientific law, but which nevertheless explains everything scientifically!mw_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PST}

mw:
As for a scientifically invincible ID theory, then we would have to do away with faith, which in the Judaeo-Christian framework is essential, central, and how an intelligent designer has decided intelligently, that’s how He wants it!
In this case we only have to be invincible in science, where progress can be measured by how many like V.J.Torley are then fairly able to say "I told you so!"GaryGaulin_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

Origenes:
In what way are scientific models “self-explanatory”? They are products of intelligent design, right?
Regardless of computer models being "products of intelligent design" they model a system that exists in reality, and must match all experimental data. An excellent example of that is the paper I linked to in the comment I just linked to above. It contains one thing after another in regards to what should be seen happening in a computer model, including theta-waves indicative of consciously exploring real or imagined places, as does the computer modeled network where the solution to a spatial problem ripples around as waves. Where waves were not involved the ID Lab model would have something out of place, not fitting evidence. But where waves are absolutely needed in the model too the scientific evidence fits just fine. Models are “self-explanatory” in a way where after you have yourself modeled enough of them for yourself you know what they are useful for, and their limitations. It is also possible to only have a computer model with no written "theory" to in words explain how it works. You then have to figure out the code, but the model to base theory upon still exists. What needs to be said in theory for non-programmers to understand it is “self-explanatory” from the model alone. Although the theory writers would each word things a little differently they are all still trying to describe the same thing.GaryGaulin_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

Thanks GG # 27 for your thoughts, and “scientifically invincible.” The limits of our knowledge are essentially regulated, we have been given what is good to know, anything else is potentially not good, and would be too much overload. For example, we do not need to know when to breath or when to beat our heart, or regulate complex systems in the wonderfully made human body. Such is also done by the autonomic nervous system, and other regulatory systems directing somehow even the smallest brainless component: all orchestrated able to know where to go. Therefore, how in the world, could the consensus management of theoretical biological evolutions big five, which appears to be, natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and chance, all devoid of a collective brain; decide, which would be an unconscious system, and a conscious one in any life component, life unit, or life system fully coordinated? In fact how is it done intelligently to any human understanding? Of course, we must try and understand things, but there is clearly a limit. As for a scientifically invincible ID theory, then we would have to do away with faith, which in the Judaeo-Christian framework is essential, central, and how an intelligent designer has decided intelligently, that’s how He wants it! Still, perhaps there is no harm trying in this case? The concept of ID does have merits. As for me, my conviction on the matter is invincible! And that is what ultimately matters. It can “walk” over the waters of evolutionism even: though scoffed at in the process. Still, there must be a better, but still limited scientific explanation than Darwin proposed, even with major amendments prevailing: his first, the watering down of what was basically a deity in the guise of an all powerful “good” selector; Darwinian theoretical natural selection, in order to knock the Judaeo-Christian God of His perch (Sinai). That really is the underlying purpose of Darwinian evolution theory. His grandfather (I think it was) had a similar problem; everything evolved from shells! He even painted a coat of arms with it on his carriage. Perhaps the "best" scientific theory must ultimately leave some room for a super scientific essence.mw_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PST}

Origenes, there is no reason why a "first cause" or "foundation of reality" should be knowable by us. Such a "necessary being" (and there is no reason why it would have to be a "being"), may exist in some sense, but there is no reason why its nature should be accessible to us an an "explanation", much less as "self-explanatory."Aleta_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PST}

mw:
Your use of logic, in this instant, reminds me of an atheist youngster commenting on the Ham/Nye debate, who said basically, Nye sticks to science but Ham keeps referring to God.
In my case though it's because the only way for the ID movement to antiquate Darwinian theory is to accept that there is a model behind it, which has been useful to many including in manufacturing where the algorithm it reduces down to can be used to design quieter and more efficient consumer appliances. The only honest thing to do is either beat that model with something better to demonstrate how speciation works, or accept that you can't. It's OK to keep working on one, but just plain wrong to make it seem like you already have a scientific model and theory. Scientific progress looks like this: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pigeons-computers-and-picasso/#comment-600806 At least some of us are developing a science changing model. VJT just made it easy for me to relate my work to their thoughts, which are way ID too but where we have a serious model to support them that will survive the test of time we are scientifically invincible.GaryGaulin_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PST}

Aleta, Gary
Aleta: I replied that I don’t believe such “self-explanatory” explanations can exist, and that is why I think that indeed that it is in principle impossible for us to know the deepest reasons why the universe is as it is.
Either something that is “self-explanatory” exists — a necessary being — as a foundation to reality or we are confronted with the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes. - - - Gary,
GG: Science is already well grounded in something which is self-explanatory, they are called “models”.
In what way are scientific models "self-explanatory"? They are products of intelligent design, right?Origenes_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PST}

Mung:
How does “intelligent cause” work? Deliberately.
How?GaryGaulin_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PST}

Dick at #13:
Some scientific theories explain “how”, but a theory doesn’t have to explain how things work or happen in order to be scientific.
If you do not have a "scientific model" then there is nothing to base a "scientific theory" upon. Making it seem otherwise is from your not having a scientific model/theory. Misinformation is being spread around to support your belief that you do not need a scientific model to explain how something works and scientific theory is just a matter of faith. But going along with something like that involves you in a scam that ultimately involves all of the public schools in the world.GaryGaulin_{March 20, 2016
March
03
Mar
20
20
2016
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply