Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uploaded: By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator

arroba Email

Hoover Institution: “Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of the universe and everything in it (including us). In this wide-ranging conversation, they point out the flaws in Darwin’s theory and the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world. ”

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Nice, shared. The mantle of science (highest probability explanation of the empirical observations) is w/in not just ID but G-d of Abraham is The One designer/creator, 'thousands (6k rounded), not billions' of years ago. reference Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ. Pearlman
The video can also be found at https://www.hoover.org/research/design-behe-lennox-and-meyer-evidence-creator There is also a transcript there too. jerry
The first question asked of Behe, Lennox, and Meyer, by the host Peter Robinson is an interesting question.
Robinson: "First question. Darwin versus Einstein. Einstein publishes the special theory of relativity in 1905, and in the 12-ish decades since that publication, one observation after another has tended to confirm his work. Just a decade ago scientists found clocks on satellites in elliptical orbits kept time just about as Einstein would have predicted. Over time, to put it crudely, Einstein has become easier and easier to believe. Darwin publishes on the origin of the species in 1859. Briefly, as was true of Einstein also (true) of Darwin? Has he become easier and easier to believe? Behe: "No the opposite." Lennox: "The exact opposite." Meyer: "(The) theory has been progressively disconfirmed by multiple observations in multiple sub-disciplines of biology." - By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator https://youtu.be/rXexaVsvhCM?t=88
The reason this is an interesting question is because Einstein's theory of special relativity, as our technology has progressed, has been confirmed to greater and greater, almost absurd, levels of precision.
"Recent experiments have confirmed, to within one part in one hundred million billion (10^17), that the speed of light does not change when an observer is in motion." - Douglas Ell - "Counting To God" - pg. 41 - 2014
In fact, in so far as measurement accuracy will allow, we can find no discrepancy between what the mathematics of special relativity predict and what we experimentally observe for its predictions.
Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision - Sept. 19, 2014 Excerpt: A team of researchers,, have conducted an experiment using ions pushed to 40 percent of the speed of light to verify time dilation to a new level of precision.,, the team describes how their experiment was conducted and how it allowed them to validate the time dilation prediction to just a few parts per billion.,,, The experiment allowed for measuring the shift in laser frequencies relative to what the transition frequencies would be for ions that had not been accelerated. By combining the two frequency shifts, uncertainties could be eliminated making it possible to validate time dilation predictions to an order of precision much higher than previous limits,, http://phys.org/news/2014-09-ions-relativistic-dilation-precision.html
Whereas, on the other hand, there simply is no realistic mathematical model of Darwin's theory that we can test against. As Robert Marks explains, “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations.,,, Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a (mathematical) model have either failed or inadvertently cheated."
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
In fact, not only does Darwin's theory not have any realistic mathematical model that we can test against, much less test against to greater and greater levels of precision, in so far as we can, with real world data, test the predictions of Darwin's model for universal common descent, against the competing "dependency graph" model, (i.e. the intelligent design model), we find that Darwin's common descent model is falsified to an almost incomprehensible degree when compared to the intelligent design model..
New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/
In any other area of science this, almost absurd, level of falsification would be far more than enough evidence, in and of itself, to render Darwin's theory to the dustbin of history as a failed 'scientific' theory. And this is, by no means, the only experimental falsification of Darwin's theory that we now have in hand,
Darwinism vs. Falsification - list of falsifications https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
But alas, Darwin's theory is simply impervious to any experimental falsification that may come forth. And the main reason that it, unlike 'hard' sciences, is impervious to experimental falsification is simply because Darwin's theory serves as a pseudo-scientific cover for the religion of atheistic naturalism. As Dr. Cornelius Hunter explains, anything within Darwin's theory can be forfeited, save for atheistic naturalism itself. As he states, "Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s (atheistic) naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one."
There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - November 10, 2022 Excerpt: What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right? Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation. Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - PhD. Biophysics https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
In short and in conclusion, Darwin's theory is far better classified as being a (unquestioned) religion for atheists than it is to be classified as being a hard and testable science.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
Supplemental Notes:
Evolution is a Religious Theory - Parts 1 thru 6 - Dr. Cornelius Hunter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHKAgioMekg&list=PLqmzrD-kp09OEtOTwWQkZKsEwQ2Qyf3pr Evolution as a Theological Research Program - by Cornelius Hunter - August 2021 Introduction Excerpt: ,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational. The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

Leave a Reply