“There is no controversy”

_{William Dembski

May 22, 2008

Evolution}

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

“There is no controversy.” “There should be no controversy.” “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” “Academic freedom does not apply where the scientific consensus says there is no controversy.” …

The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics (go here).

Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval (go here). Yes, the field is in disarray, but there is NO CONTROVERSY. What, are we living in a Kafka novel?

Comments

There is no controversy over the major issues with evolution, only minor ones such as "is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only" (G.G.Simpson), or what is the cause of evolution, or is the apparent design in living things real or only an illusion.Granville Sewell_{May 27, 2008
May
05
May
27
27
2008
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Thanks for the study. In all their analysis, I do not see a head to head fitness test. You would surely think a head to head fitness test would have been performed by them so as they could prove the evolution of bacteria. Am I missing it somewhere? Out of all their test a fitness test would have been one of the simplest to perform by far. Thanks for the study once again, I was going to further explore this line of study myself this morning.bornagain77_{May 27, 2008
May
05
May
27
27
2008
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Here is the abstract of a further study about the 250 million years old bacteria: Fatty acid and DNA analyses of Permian bacteria isolated from ancient salt crystals reveal differences with their modern relatives. Vreeland RH, Rosenzweig WD, Lowenstein T, Satterfield C, Ventosa A. Department of Biology, West Chester University, West Chester, PA 19383, USA. rvreeland@wcupa.edu The isolation of living microorganisms from primary 250-million-year-old (MYA) salt crystals has been questioned by several researchers. The most intense discussion has arisen from questions about the texture and age of the crystals used, the ability of organisms to survive 250 million years when exposed to environmental factors such as radiation and the close similarity between 16S rRNA sequences in the Permian and modern microbes. The data in this manuscript are not meant to provide support for the antiquity of the isolated bacterial strains. Rather, the data presents several comparisons between the Permian microbes and other isolates to which they appear related. The analyses include whole cell fatty acid profiling, DNA-DNA hybridizations, ribotyping, and random amplified polymorphic DNA amplification (RAPD). These data show that the Permian strains, studied here, differ significantly from their more modern relatives. These differences are accumulating in both phenotypic and molecular areas of the cells. At the fatty acid level the differences are approaching but have not reached separate species status. At the molecular level the variation appears to be distributed across the genome and within the gene regions flanking the highly conserved 16S rRNA itself. The data show that these bacteria are not identical and help to rule out questions of contamination by putatively modern strains.gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

In regards to the ancient bacteria studies, since they have actually revived the ancient bacteria, I think a VERY interesting "fitness" test between ancient and modern bacteria can be performed that very well may give strong support to the "Conservation of Information/Genetic Entropy" model of ID. I firmly believe it is very possible that the ancient bacteria will demonstrate a measurable amount of fitness over its very close DNA-wise, but different, ancestor. (Just as ancient lineages of cichlid fishes demostrate robustness over their descendent sub-species) The only bugs in this test that I can see is the environmental differences between now and 30 million years ago as well as the differences from now and 250 million years ago as well it is possible that God created slightly different strains of the same bacteria for the differing environments Yet if God indeed created these particular strains of bacteria in one time events, which I highly suspect he did from the pattern in the fossil evidence as well as present studies of genetic diversity, then the conservation of information principle should prove robust and demonstrate itself in the test. I love the possibilty that such a test of fitness will reveal in concrete terms, over millions of years of time, the foundational principles for conservation of information and for Genetic Entropy. And provide another crushing blow against Darwinism.bornagain77_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: Thank you for the kind words. I really think that we should become more involved in technical problems regarding molecular biology. Many assumptions of evolutionary biology are probably rather arbitrary. I think there is a great abundance of interesting facts and of problems at that level, but most of them are not correctly emphasized becaused they cannot really be explained by the standard model. I invite again those interested to join the thread about the de novo protein gene, because we could discuss some interesting aspects there (also because here, at 206 posts, the air is rather heavy!).gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Thanks gpuccio, You never cease to amaze me. Here is another ancient bacteria study backing up the foundational ID premise of Conservation of information coupled with Genetic Entropy: Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber RJ Cano and MK Borucki Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5213/1060 I really liked this study because being sealed in amber removed many speculations the Darwinists have invoked to block the crushing evidence. As far as incorporating this into a more robust theory that can make accurate predictions for ID, I believe ID is well on its way (especially with the many mathematically gifted minds we have around here), But to illustrate the clarification that ID is undergoing here is a fairly recent blog by DaveScot that illustrates the refining of the ID theory that is presently taking place; Genetic Entropy and Malarial Parasite P. falciparum https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/genetic-entropy-and-malarial-parasite-pfalciparum/ Hope it helpsbornagain77_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

utidjian: "Did you read the last sentence in that report? How does that sentence affect your position? What evidence are they denying?" Let's put it this way: a set of evidences would date the bacteria at 250 million years ago, while molecular phylogenetic analyses contradict that. Obviously, the evidence for the old datation could be wrong (although tehre seems to be no reason to think so). But if it is not, then the only other possible explanation is that the criteria used in evolutionary phylogenetic analyses are not reliable at all, and that bacteria of 250 million years ago are almost the same as modern bacteria. Now, that would really be a problem for a great part of evolutionary biology, so you wouldn't expect that it will be easily admitted. The fact is that molecular phylogenetic analyses seem to be based on a lot of assumptions, and have been used for decades as the main "evidence" for darwinian evolution (although they are, at best, evidence for common descent). Any evidence against their accuracy, therefore, is pretty uncomfortable for the standard views of biology.gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

BA77, Please expand upon how exactly the ID model with conservation of information and "Genetic Entropy" will help those scientists make a more detailed analysis. What "more robust predictions" can they make? Shouldn't you be telling those scientists about this? Did you read the last sentence in that report? How does that sentence affect your position? What evidence are they denying? Yes, better to drop the "theistic position of magnets" until you have, at least, a secondary school level understanding on how magnets work.utidjian_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

utidjian, As I'm not knowledgeable to defend the theistic position regarding magnets, I am very sorry I even brought it up. But as too the ancient DNA of bacteria these are consistent findings that come from several different scientists, with drastic measures taken by each to prevent contamination of the ancient bacteria with modern bacteria. Yet consistently they find no significant mutational drift that is required by Darwinism. In fact the scientists find a "small but significant drift" that precludes any modern contamination yet overturns the required mutational drift that would be required to be proven for evolution to be considered true. The small but significant drift readily finds a place in the ID mod^el with conservation of information and Genetic Entropy providing the corner stones for a more detailed analysis, as well as laying the foundations for more robust predictions for the ancient DNA evidence that scientists may find in the future.bornagain77_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

BA77: The website and book you reference regarding gravity and magnetism is (almost) complete gobbledygook. There is is no "violation" or mysterious force holding my shopping list to the refrigerator door. I could just as well hold a scrap of paper on to the door by leaning a stick (broomhandle) against the scrap. It would have the disadvantage of making the door difficult to open without disturbing the scrap of paper. Quite simply, in the case of refrigerator magnets, the normal force due to the magnet times the coefficient of static friction exceeds the weight of the magnet due to gravity. As far as masses oscillating through a hole in the earth .... we already do this experiment in a far more practical way with pendulums. Pendulums and how they work is well understood. Re: Post 200: I read the article you link to and it appears to me that the authors are not denying any evidence as you suggest but, instead, they are discussing the evidence that they have to date and trying to make sense of it. The last sentence in that article reads: "As it stands, our present molecular work can neither confirm nor disprove the age of isolate 2-9-3."utidjian_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Mavis you ask: How about the overpowering evidence of biological discoveries gpuccio alluded to in other post he has written: Though not as detailed as gpuccio, this example has always stood out for me Some bacterium fossils, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have had their DNA recovered, sequenced and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). Scientists accomplished this using a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost exact DNA sequence. “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; (The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes) http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 If you read the article you will see how they jump through all sorts of incredible hoops to try to reconcile the data with evolutionary theory, So for me this is a prime example of "denied" evidence.bornagain77_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Mavis: "Sorry for speaking my mind. I’ll leave you to talk about magnets with Bornagain77 then." Never been interested in that discussion about magnets. Regarding my phrase, perhaps you missed the part saying: "you are welcome to the discussion, but please give some specific contribution to it."gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Mavis: "are you saying that because of this book some psychiatric problems have been cured and the placebo effect fully understood?" No, I am saying that the book details the work of some scientists whon are trying to better understand and cure those problems from a non materialistic point of view. "Seems to me the DNA molecuce has been studied for decades already." Yes, but not so much from a biophysical point of view. Biochemistry has been the leading science up to now. Biophysics looks at things in a very different way, and is really in its beginnings. "Here I presume you refer to Mr Axe and his work at the biologic institiute. Yes, it could help but is it helping?" No, I am referring to all those who study protein folding, still one of the least understood problems in biophysics. "Has O’Leary demonstrated better understanding then the majority consensus already, on the issues you refer to above?" O'Leary is not a neuroscientist. Beauregard is. And yes, he has. I think you would not waste your time reading his book. "I happen to be reading a Penrose book right now." That's good news. Let me know what you think of it.gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

So, if you are serious, and don’t want only to joke and provoke, you are welcome to the discussion, but please give some specific contribution to it. Otherwise, go your way…
Sorry for speaking my mind. I'll leave you to talk about magnets with Bornagain77 then.Mavis Riley_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Regarding the Beauregard book, you could perhaps refer to chapter six,about the cure of some psychiatric problems and the understanding of the placebo effect.
Again, that's very fuzzy. I'll have to order the book, but are you saying that because of this book some psychiatric problems have been cured and the placebo effect fully understood?
An example of the importance of biophysics are the studies about the physical properties of the DNA molecule, which are still at their beginnigs. I have read a few very interesting papers about that, but I have not a reference now. If I find them, I’ll let you know.
Seems to me the DNA molecuce has been studied for decades already. I'll await the reference.
Another field of great importance is obviously the theory of protein folding, which could help us understand how the functional spaces of proteins are really configured, a crucial point for both ID and darwinian evolution. That would also help greatly in protein engineering, helping us to design proteins.
Here I presume you refer to Mr Axe and his work at the biologic institiute. Yes, it could help but is it helping?
but still a good example of how long held paradigms could completely and unexpectedly change, if a minority theory can demonstrate that it is better than the majority consensus.
And this is why i'm presing for specifics. It's not going to happen unless you do exactly that. Has O'Leary demonstrated better understanding then the majority consensus already, on the issues you refer to above? Are they cured or not?
A few corageous scientists, in all fields of science. Count Dembski, Behe, Penrose among them. But also Shapiro, Abel and Trevors, and so on.
I happen to be reading a Penrose book right now.Mavis Riley_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Mavis (#193): Please, don't play around. My post was a summary of many arguments repeatedly discussed here at UD by me and by many others. Many of these detailed discussions are behing held just now here, with your rather passive participation (see the thread where F2XL is very seriously debating the complexity of the flagellum). I have invited you to a detailed molecular discussion about darwinian explanations in the thread about the de novo protein gene. Nobody of us is reluctant to discuss the evodence, in whatever detail you want. But we cannot do that at every single post. So, if you are serious, and don't want only to joke and provoke, you are welcome to the discussion, but please give some specific contribution to it. Otherwise, go your way...gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Mavis: I am not sure I understand all your comments. If in #191 you are spaking of the laws of the state, and in particular of US laws, then my answer in no. But I really don't understand how your question may be pertinent to my arguments. Regarding the Beauregard book, you could perhaps refer to chapter six,about the cure of some psychiatric problems and the understanding of the placebo effect. About the interpretation of biological data, I have no opinion about the frogamander fo which you seem so fond, and whose relevance eludes me. I was thinking more of the interpretation of molecular data. As an example, I have tried an approach to the reading of a recent paper in the thread "Claim of a de novo acting protein" which can show how the same facts can give different insights if they are interpreted in the light of different theorical premises. If you want, you are welcome to discuss these aspects there. An example of the importance of biophysics are the studies about the physical properties of the DNA molecule, which are still at their beginnigs. I have read a few very interesting papers about that, but I have not a reference now. If I find them, I'll let you know. Another field of great importance is obviously the theory of protein folding, which could help us understand how the functional spaces of proteins are really configured, a crucial point for both ID and darwinian evolution. That would also help greatly in protein engineering, helping us to design proteins. Finally, you could give a look at the theory of nerve transmission by soliton sound pulses, which has been proposed for many years by the Niels Bohr Insitute researchers, and only by them. It is an interesting example of a totally unconventional biophysics theory, which denies practically all that has been believed about nerve transmission. Nothing to do with ID (perhaps), but still a good example of how long held paradigms could completely and unexpectedly change, if a minority theory can demonstrate that it is better than the majority consensus. "How soon? Who by? Where should we look for this to happen?" Soon. Again, my idea: five-ten years. A few corageous scientists, in all fields of science. Count Dembski, Behe, Penrose among them. But also Shapiro, Abel and Trevors, and so on. A good idea would be to stay tuned here.gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

Hi Bornagain, Would you quote for me this "evidence" that was not sufficent to convince me please?
The desperate effort to reconcile all that new evidence with the existing causal theory of RV + NS, or to produce new fantasy theories without any causal explanatory power, are sometimes funny, almost always sad and squalid.
I saw no "evidence", just opinion. Interesting to read, sure, but not what I would call evidence. Hence my follow up question asking for specifics. You may be satisified with less BA but I guess I'm not.Mavis Riley_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Thanks gpuccio, Reading your writng is like a breath of fresh air for my mind, You answered Mavis's question far better than I could have ever done. Yet I find it interesting that In spite of your clarity he still balked?!? I wonder if any amount of evidence will ever be enough for Mavis?!? But as for me, Thanks again for your clarity.bornagain77_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Also, do you think a change in the law is required before the things you speak of come to pass?Mavis Riley_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the long post. However I don't see any pratical benefits, only "promised" benefits.
In The Spiritual Brain you can find many examples of how a non materialistic approach to consciousness can lead to immediate benefits in many fields, from medecine, to psychiatry, to religion, greatly improving the quality of life of people.
Can you give me a specifc example? It seems to me that one of the critisims often leveld at evolution" is that it promises explainations are coming for things that are as yet unexplained. Yet equally I could say of ID that the things you talk about, such as those in your post, are "always coming" but never quite here. Do you have a concrete, pratical, not "soon" but right now example of how the ID paradine is producing results, and better results then the alternative?
The design context allows a completely different interpretation of biological data, which has still to be carried over.
Case in point, the frogamander. Does the design context shed any light on that strange beast?
Biophysics will soon prove false many simplifications which are currently held as dogma.
Could you give me an example please of such a false simplification? If you can't then how do you know that's the case?
it’s for the sake of knowledge and of cognitive self-respect that we are going to be soon delivered from the errors of the last decades.
How soon? Who by? Where should we look for this to happen?Mavis Riley_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Mavis: A general cultural shift is taking place, one of the most important in recent history. Strict materialism has overpowered modern thought in the last decades, but all of its main incarnations are now in severe crisis. Materialism and modernism have tried to make science the new religion of our age. But luckily, good science is better than the deformed image of it that scientism entertains, and the discoveries of science itself can no more support the simplistic assumptions about reality which have been the basis of scientistic philosophy. Physics is still looking for a general explanation of reality, and not findimg it. String theories are in crisis. Quantum theory thrives, but its general interpretation remains a mystery, adn while the reductive approach of Bohr's Copenaghen interpretation has held for a few years, it is no more generally warranted. All recent experimental acquisitions, up to quantum teleportation, demonstrate that quantum theory really holds the key to a deeper understanding of reality, but that that key has yet to be really used. The biggest lie of all materialistic lies, strong AI theory, is going to show its total failure as soon as possible. It has explained nothing, it is based on completely false philosophical and methodological assumptions, it denies the principle itself of experience, personal consciousness. Turing's test has never been passed, and never will be. Computers are never going to become conscious. Serious empirical approach to the empirical fact of the existence of consciousness is badly needed, and it is taking place (see The spiritual brain for details). Mathematics, if not psychology or religion, can show us the non algorithmic nature of consciuosness (see Penrose), and quantum mechanics can offer some basis for new theories of the consiousness-brain interaction (see, for instance, Eccles and followers, and the same Penrose). Darwinian evolution theory, the second biggest lie of materialistic dogma, will soon be completely made obsolete by the overpowering evidence of new biological discoveries. ID is only setting the new theoretical framework which will make us able to go on looking for reasonable explanations of known facts, but it is biological research itself which is going to give us the facts which will ultimately prove the old theory false. Practically each day, new evidence of complexity and design is unearthed in the biological world. The desperate effort to reconcile all that new evidence with the existing causal theory of RV + NS, or to produce new fantasy theories without any causal explanatory power, are sometimes funny, almost always sad and squalid. There is no intellectual freedom in evolutionary research today, no real cognitive sincerety. But, luckily, facts are found just the same, and facts are facts. Philosophy of science is ahead of scientism of decades. Kuhn, Polanyi, Feyerabend have spoken volumes against the simplistic view of science which still today makes up the backbone of everyday's materialism. Today's scientistic dogmas are based on a philosophy which died long time ago. Dawkin's excursions into philosophy and religion are pitiful amateur ramblings of a bad secondary school student. Atheists of old times, like Russel, were at least interesting philosophers, but what can you say of Dawkins? The degradation of materialist thinking is severe and obvious. In the end, maybe that it will be physics, the old serious physics, which will point to the right direction. It is, at present, the only hard science which has the courage to face its mysteries (see dark energy). Biology is still trying to hide its ones under a carpet, but the carpet is becoming increasingly small. Biophysics will soon prove false many simplifications which are currently held as dogma. The physics of far from equilibrium systems is just at its beginnings, but it could really help understand some of the processes of life. DNA is still a mystery, and we have to realize that we understand almost nothing of its role and functions. Evo devo is the right thing made in the wrong way. It can discover much, provided that it does not stick to the temptation of easily explaining out things just to support the dying theory of darwinian evolution. But perhaps, understanding in a scientific way (which does not mean in a reductive, materialistic and deterministic way) the nature and laws of consciousness will be the final clue to a new formulation of scientific culture. You ask for practical benefits? The first, and foremost, practical benefit is creative thinking. That opens the road to true understanging. In The Spiritual Brain you can find many examples of how a non materialistic approach to consciousness can lead to immediate benefits in many fields, from medecine, to psychiatry, to religion, greatly improving the quality of life of people. The recognition of the design principle is of fundamental importance. It will open the road to a new understanding of meaning in the context of information theory, which is at present one of the black holes in modern culture (a theory of information without any approach to meaning is like a theory of consciousness which denies consciousness: the last century had the privilege of witnessing both such strange entities flourish). The design context allows a completely different interpretation of biological data, which has still to be carried over. The functional point of view is much stronger in the design context than it is in the deterministic context, and above all it is not conditioned only by the bare concept of survival, but can be appreciated in the much vaster principle of function and meaning. The understanding of biological regulation (see non coding DNA) will be possible only in the context of design, when we will become realistic enough to recognize general plans and intelligent procedures in living beings which cannot be reconduced to lucky mechanical feedbacks or to the "wonders" of blind mother evolution. With the new paradigm, practical benefits will come in spades. But indeed, the most practical benefit of all remains knowledge. It's for the sake of knowledge that the biggest advancements in science have been realized, and it's for the sake of knowledge and of cognitive self-respect that we are going to be soon delivered from the errors of the last decades.gpuccio_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

How long till the first pratical benefit to be realised? Many people will only be convinced by results. You say it's already happening but where do you see evidence of that?Mavis Riley_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Mavis: "How long are you prepared to wait?" It's already happening, day after day. so it really doesn't matter how long it takes. It's an exciting wait anyway. And, in my opinion, it's more a matter of years than of decades.gpuccio_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

The near future holds bright promise to this particular line of investigation abd I am quite confident that it will further delineate the Theistic and Materialistic philosophies.
How long are you prepared to wait?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Mavis you stated: No, I’m saying that it’s because of “materialism” that we can say that it does. Materialism does not predict in the way you mean it, it allows you to find out. You are confusing the philosophy of materialism with the scientific method. Materialism as a philosophy presupposed time and distance to be infinite. I believe it was St. Aquinas who was first to state that Theism would predict the creation of time from the timeless eternity God lives in. (I can probably verify this one if you want) ASs far as how Theism would work differently in science: Theism, at its base entanglement with materialism, would presuppose the basic "ethereal" universal (and unchanging) forces to precede the many material atomic particles at every instance there is an interaction, whereas materialism will presuppose that some material atomic particle will precede every unversal force at every instance. Thus we have the problematic invention of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Yet, Theism would not have been forced into inventing such hypothetical particles, since the "ethreal" forces had been considered foundational to reality instead of the particles. and Theism would have been free to expect the forces to arise independently of any particles from a higher dimension. As to how to formalize this into a simple concise form I don't know but I do know that is how it would work. As well with Dr. Anton Zeilinger's work in quantum telelportation, Theism is free to consider that the irreducible kernel from which every thing flows is "information. http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Yet for some reason I do not fully understand Quantum non-locality has forced the materialistic philosophy to propose the many worlds scenario. (Hopefully O"Leary's coming book will untangle this.) Myself, I find the dominion and trancendance of information much simpler and frankly much more pleasing to the mind than I find the patchwock of the MWI. The near future holds bright promise to this particular line of investigation and I am quite confident that it will further delineate the Theistic and Materialistic philosophies.bornagain77_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

dmso74: "So what we both have are personal opinions, which in the grand scheme of science don’t count for much." But they do count in personal public confrontation, which is more or less what we are doing now. In the grand scheme of science, personal opinions are presented as theories. ID is a theory, and not a personal opinion. "The only way the “goodness” or “badness” of a theory can really be determined is how well it stands up to scrutiny within the scientific community. " I don't agree. I have never appreciated conformism, in any form. The goodness of a theory will be determined in the end by its own merits, as our understanding improves, and "if" it improves. A bad theory can gain the acclaim of the scientific community for some time, and still remains a bad theory. It happens. It has happened, unfortunately, for darwinian evolution. Not all that has the acclaim of a community is good, and we have many examples of that. The scientific community is not by default better than any other human community. It has no special privilege. Maybe the members of the scientific community will not agree with that, but why am I not surprised? "I suspect that if physicists came under the same sort of contant attacks, they would say similar things" I have a better opinion of phycisists than you have. But, again, the community of physicists is not by default better than any other human community. We will judge them according to their behaviour. At present, some physicists have certainly debated very non conformist points of view, with great courage (see for instance Penrose's argument from the Godel theorem in favour of non algorithmic processes in the human mind). The same Penrose has often debated the improbability of the space of phases of the existing universe, which is one of the best ways to express the cosmological argument for the existence of God. So, as you see, physics is not always strictly committed to an orthodox, reducitonist view of methodological naturalism. Maybe gravitation (up to now) does not require anything more than methodological naturalism (after all, it has not to explain CSI), but other aspects of physics may certainly need a more general cognitive approach. "my point is that the exact same type of wild speculation that you condemn in evolution goes on in every science." First of all, I don't condemn the wild speculation in evolution: I just don't buy it, because it is not convincing. I always appreciate speculation, be it wild or tame. Wild is often the best. But it has to be good, convincing, wild speculation. What I condemn is the attitude that: "I can wildly (and badly) speculate, but you can't". Our wild speculation of intelligent design has the same rights to exists, and it is far better, far more interesting, far deeper. And, yes, really wild! "“intelligent and open debate” is as much a part of evolution as cosmology, unless you mean “debate including the possibility of intelligent design”, which does not go on in either field." Exactly quod erat demonstrandum.gpuccio_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Hi BA
Mavis are you saying that materialism predicted that time would come to a complete stop at C? I can asure that it did not.
No, I'm saying that it's because of "materialism" that we can say that it does. Materialism does not predict in the way you mean it, it allows you to find out What would step one, the very first step that would diverge from doing it via "materialism", be in investigating magnetism with theism? What would be different doing it your way BA? The fact is, if it produced better results then the current method people would jump on the bandwagon, whatever metaphysical baggage was attached. All that's needed is a single demonstration to get the ball rolling, to start the revolution.
nor in my very uneducated opinion can materialism satisfactorily explain electromagnetism (wiki not withstanding
What do you mean "explain"? What does that entail? What would have to happen for you to consider it "explained"? I'm genuinely interested..Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, Are you and wiki saying that electro-magnetism has a undeniable material basis? For me I would say that the basic forces give rise to the material particle not the other way around. Mavis are you saying that materialism predicted that time would come to a complete stop at C? I can asure that it did not. You ask, What does it have to do with ID? Well if materialism can't satisfactorily explain Gravity, which is a conclusion agreed upon by almost everyone here, even by DaveScot, nor in my very uneducated opinion can materialism satisfactorily explain electromagnetism (wiki not withstanding), then by all rights this developement takes the foundational explanatory power away from materialism and gives the Design Inference more weight and explanatory power for the origin of life on earth.bornagain77_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

BA77, In any case, I don't see the connection that any of that with Intelligent Design?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply