Stephen Meyer addresses the question of the nature of the designer proposed by evidence for fine-tuning of the universe and the design in living organisms.
Although fine-tuning may not constitute “proof” for the existence of God, can we assert that it is consistent with the concept of God as creator?
Of course you can. The idea of God is that he is an omni-everything divine being, so of course the idea is consistent with that idea. However, many other religious ideas are likewise consistent with the creation of our universe fine-tuning, so this consistency really tells us nothing. This doesn’t seem like much of a question.
Well, there you have it, all nicely wrapped up with a bow……
I recently said that logic and evidence which subsumes science points to a creator. Possibly to some characteristics of the creator.
Rather than using the term “god” which implies a specific creator and usually a religion, creator is the best term. But logic and evidence that’s not science points to specifics. It points to religion. Maybe a specific religion.
But that is not ID.
Time for some wild speculation by both sides of the debate that’s religious oriented.
The bestest of the bestest has responded.
Can we create a new word to encompass all responses by ChuckDarwin? Here’s a strong candidate
hyperinanity
The poisonous resistance to God here. “Oooh, it can’t be God. You know, that points to a ReLigIon and we can’t — just can’t — connect ID to aNyThiNG religious…”
Give me a break. ID clearly points to an intelligence. Clearly. But here, it’s “Let’s just throw a big blanket over the possibility because God means religion and…”
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
@Relatd #5
Don’t break the spell, R. You will lose your chance at having it taught in public schools.
The spell? Is that what you call it? Let’s see. Intelligent Design. So, an intelligence is involved. For atheists, we have:
1) Aliens.
2) Beings from another dimension who woke up one day and decided to create this dimension and universe.
And so on…
ID as ‘pure as the driven snow’ science? Well, the average – non-scientist – person, looks at ID and what? Thinks “I don’t dare tack on God or religion.” Why? Because ‘the rules’ say you can’t?
No, sorry. The evidence here is that atheists have taken Darwin’s book and decided: “Hey. No God. It happened all by itself. ……… BY Accident.”
Take your pick.
Related makes tongue-in-cheek suggestions for candidate “Intelligent Designers.”
There don’t appear to be any sign of Aliens within striking range of Earth. Nor does Related suggest how Aliens did/do their designing. No mechanism is offered.
Related can’t be serious with this one.
Related, nobody who supports or criticises ID thinks the “Intelligent Designer” is other than a deity of choice, the Catholic God in your case.
AF/8
Which, of course, negates the whole “ID isn’t religion” silliness……
CD at 9,
Oh my. Still missing the boat. There is ID, the science. Then there is ID among the common people. They, like me, include God. God is the designer.
Relatd/7
Well, if we didn’t do it nor any other terrestrial life-form – and there’s no reason to think we did – then it has to have been extraterrestrials – aliens – by definition.
It’s possible but a tad speculative.
No, because the lack of evidence means we have no good reason to tack them on. Burden of proof, old bean.
Darwin made it clear he didn’t know how it all came about. We still don’t. Not very satisfactory but there it is.
EDIT: Oops, looks like I’m a little late. Oh well.
As Jerry said
The source of that intelligence is currently not accessible to scientific experimentation.
As Relatd said
This is reminiscent of the immediate but unstated rejection of Graham Cairns?Smith’s Clay Theory of the origin of life. It was too much like the description of Genesis for some people, although a “clay matrix” is much more likely to serve as a scratchpad of life than an aquatic one.
Who could be the designer behind ID?
A. An alien civilization from the multiverse not based on carbon (we’re someone’s class project).
B. A conscious, intelligent universe popular with cosmic humanists.
C. We are. We’re experiencing an in silico “ancestor simulation” as some scientists suggest.
D. We’re not actually here–we’re fooled by metaphysical solipsism.
E. God. GASP and HORRORS! 😛
As far as ID is concerned, it really doesn’t matter!
What matters to science is that the things we don’t understand are better understood and advance science faster when we assume they were intelligently designed than when we assume they are random and have no purpose.
The hypothesis that discoveries of new functions, biochemical cycles, and structures are random and purposeless has been repeatedly falsified. Vestigial organs aren’t vestigial, junk DNA isn’t junk, spontaneous generation doesn’t happen, protoplasm isn’t undifferentiated magical living goo, etc.
-Q
News from the Future:
Intelligent Design Textbooks arrive at Public Schools
(AP) The Future. Intelligent Design textbooks arrived at public schools in all 50 states today. A spokesman for the ACLU said, “We looked through them multiple times and could find no references to God or religion. This is an outrage!” Another spokesman said, “They are doing it. They are getting religion into science classes! We knew this was coming!!”
Multiple lawsuits have been dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court as being without merit. A brief statement was released: “The separation of Church and State argument does not apply since the textbooks in question contained no references to God or religion.”
Relatd @13,
Yes, but there are no scientific disclaimers in the textbook that scientists all agree God couldn’t possibly exist and, as a result, students might be allowed to imagine that God rather than the State is the highest authority.
This kind of thinking is racist, Fascist, anti-democratic, white-supremacist, sexist, antivax, meritocratic, and absolutely unacceptable to our omniscient and benevolent leadership of the multifaceted and omnipresent State!
-Q
Q at 14,
The Marxist-Atheist state within a state will be devastated. More people will go to Church. Sermons using ID concepts will be preached. Kids will be taught that someone made them. An intelligence made them. That living things are designed. Those who are Woke – another God replacement – will be in disarray. “WE decide what is right and wrong. ONLY us!”
Relatd @15,
Of course, when this collapse happens (which seems to be historically inevitable), we’ll be told, “Yes, but that wasn’t TRUE socialism.” LOL
And some of the ideologically poisoned professors that I’ve encountered were in no way people I’d want to emulate or trade places with: bitter, condescending, unpleasant, arbitrary, opinionated, unimaginative, jealous, and angry. What lousy lives! And that goes for politicians and celebrities as well.
-Q
Wow!
Whenever the subject of ID is raised, the talk is always about “A” designer or “AN” intelligent agent. Always singular. Using human design as a comparator, almost all highly complicated design efforts were the result of teamwork; a group of designers working together. Doesn’t this strongly suggest that the universe and life were the result of multiple designers working together?
SG at 18,
If the designer is God then no human comparison is applicable.
CD at 20,
Here is Querius describing the current mess:
“The hypothesis that discoveries of new functions, biochemical cycles, and structures are random and purposeless has been repeatedly falsified. Vestigial organs aren’t vestigial, junk DNA isn’t junk, spontaneous generation doesn’t happen, protoplasm isn’t undifferentiated magical living goo, etc.”
God is accessible right now but the Cross and the Bible are foolishness to you.
The first two questions those kids will ask will be “who and what is this intelligence?” I’ve been there, it’s called Catholic grade school. And you best have an answer better than “the source of that intelligence is currently not accessible to scientific experimentation,” or those first graders will eat you for lunch…..
CD at 21,
A litigator AND a lapsed Catholic. Anyway, yes, in Catholic school the designer is automatically God. And any Christian school. The Muslims will also get on board with this.
The children of atheists will tell their parents, and well… it won’t be pretty. The white smoke will start coming out of their parents’ ears as they try to ignore this is happening. [said in a robotic voice] “We are just meat puppets. No one made us. It does not compute. Systems failure imminent. Warning! Warning!” and then they fall over on the couch. After they wake up, some of them may even consider Christianity. Otherwise, they will have trouble explaining why they still cling to Darwin.
Non sequitur. Would you like to answer the question?
SG at 23,
I guess I have no answer that would be acceptable.
Sir Giles, I don’t think the dismissal in 18 is very relevant to your question. I find it a bit ironic that ID routinely starts with design by human beings as the analog by which to infer design by non-human designers, including extrapolating, for theistic IDists, to God, but in this case dismisses your question by saying human comparison isn’t applicable if the designer is God, therefore ruling out the possibility that the designer(s) aren’t God.
You might be interested in the post on Multiple Designers Theory by Dick Hoppe, and subsequent posts by Evan, at the Panda’s Thumb in 2004. It’s long, but takes the possible details of ID seriously in ways that aren’t done much any more. https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/introduction-to.html
Sir Giles @18,
Considering parsimony, the simplest answer is that there’s one designer rather than four, nine, or sixteen. In my experience, teams refine, but individuals innovate.
We cannot scientifically demonstrate the purposes of such a designer. For example, why did the designer create our universe in the first place? Can Science even begin to answer the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer might be *revealed* by this designer or might not. But it’s not up to us.
Considering only what we think we know through science, the complexities of biochemistry for example, what are the odds that we’d be able to understand the creator?
I had a math professor in college who used to say, “Isn’t it obvious?” so many times that in the student evaluations, her sometimes exasperated students gave her high marks, but wrote, “To Dr. ____, all math is obvious.” I really enjoyed her class, although it was painful for her to have to slow down to our level.
Have you ever argued with a genius? What are the odds that you could outwit or out-argue a creator with an IQ of let’s say a billion? Let me scale his down. What would happen if you got into an argument with Grigori Perelman (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Grigori-Perelman) about the nature of manifolds?
This should explain Relatd’s answer to your question in @24.
-Q
Q writes, “Considering parsimony, the simplest answer is that there’s one designer rather than four, nine, or sixteen.”
Just for the sake of argument, given the vast range of diversity of life, including the ways in which some organisms prey in various ways on others, why is it more parsimonious to think one designer is involved in all of those. To use an analogy, there are multiple groups of designers responsible for the various makes of cars: if there were only one car designer, it would seem there would be much less variety.
Same with organisms. I don’t think you can dismiss the idea because of parsimony.
I’m not sure I agree with that. Steve Jobs was the innovator (motivator), but he left it to his experts to solve the problem of design and implementation. The same with Bill Gates, Musk, Edison and almost all people credited with complex designs. Their ideas required the input of multiple intelligent agents to come to fruition.
I agree with Viola Lee. If we are going to use comparisons to human design to infer design elsewhere, we can’t throw out the aspects of human design that don’t correspond to our pre-conceived beliefs. If all known examples of complex human design required the input of multiple intelligent agents, why would the design of the universe or life, far more complex that any human design, be any different?
Yes, yes, you are right – there must have been more than one designer.
The one who designed Ireland made a deal with the one who designed the oceans to send the Gulf Stream along the coast– probably offered to babysit for him on Friday nights. The one who designed Australia and left it with 3/4 desert probably was relocated to designing Gibraltar or something.
And the one who designed the bacteria showed them all how to work efficiently with a minimum of resources – UV resistant cell wall, locomotion, reproduction … . Got all the fundamentals right and then saw all the clever designs go extinct in at least 50% of the cases. Someone buried the corpses in the Burgess shale in the hope that nobody would ever see what a mess was made of them.
Yes, it all fits.
Viola Lee @27,
Scientifically, you have NO evidence that there exactly 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . n designers. But there is evidence of design, thus all one can conclude is that there’s one designer until any additional evidence emerges that there are more than one.
This is similar to any effect in physics. One assumes there’s one cause for any effect UNTIL evidence emerges that there are two, three, or more.
-Q
Sir Giles @28,
I could care less whether you agree–you don’t seem to know the difference between an innovator and an entrepreneur.
Innovators tend to be recognized as such in history. Whether Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, James Watt, Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie, Philo Farnsworth, Grace Hopper, and many others had assistance is likely, but their innovations were driven by their unique insights and creativity, not by a committee of people.
And these are all diversionary side issues anyway from the points I previously made, which you’ve either forgotten or are attempting to obscure.
-Q
Thanks, Viola, for that link to Richard Hoppe’s multiple designer theory. An interesting read. It illustrates how much has changed since the heady days of the early 2,000’s. (And how much hasn’t.)
Can’t exist a team without a Team Leader because without a unified goal one can built something that other will destroy it because he thinks he has a better idea.
The model of Monarchy or President is the model of God.
A body has only one mind(unless has some mental issues) that controls all the other limbs .
Then is the problem of power , if there are many “creators” that have different opinions which opinion will be chosen? Of course the opinion of the most powerful “creator” otherwise will be an infinite quarelling like here on UD, because atheists don’t accept the reality .
Sir Giles asks, “Whenever the subject of ID is raised, the talk is always about “A” designer or “AN” intelligent agent. Always singular. Using human design as a comparator, almost all highly complicated design efforts were the result of teamwork; a group of designers working together. Doesn’t this strongly suggest that the universe and life were the result of multiple designers working together?”
So is Sir Giles really suggesting that multiple designers, who are finite in their intellectual powers, created the universe and life?
If Sir Giles is suggesting that multiple designers, who are finite in their intellectual powers, created, (and sustain), the universe and life, then Sir Giles suggestion runs into the problem of causal inadequacy. This is simply because multiple finite designers will never have the ‘infinite’ causal adequacy within themselves in order to explain the ‘collapse’ of even a single quantum wave.
Simply put, it takes an omniscient and omnipresent cause to explain the collapse of even a single quantum wave, and thus no finite cause will ever have the causal adequacy within itself in order to explain the collapse of a single quantum wave.
More specifically, a quantum wave, prior to collapse, is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimension state. Moreover, the quantum wave, (again, prior to collapse), is in an infinite dimensional state that requires an infinite amount of information to describe it properly.
As is fairly obvious, the ‘infinite dimensional’ Hilbert space corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omnipresence. And the infinite information required to describe the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function prior to collapse corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omniscience.
In essence, the wave function is, basically, mathematically described as being one of “God’s thoughts’ prior to its collapse to its finite ‘material’ state.
Which is rather stunning confirmation of the Christian’s contention, (via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology), that the (infinite-dimensional) mathematics that are found to describe this universe really are “God’s thoughts”. Just as was originally held by the Christian founders of modern science.
Verse:
Of supplemental note; Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are both on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe to be a quote-unquote ‘miracle’.
Eugene Wigner, (after rightly calling into question the ability of Darwin’s natural selection to produce our ‘reasoning power’), stated that, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here,,, and “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.,,”
Likewise, Albert Einstein is also on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe as a ‘miracle’. Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a ‘miracle’.
And the last time I checked, miracles are considered to be the sole province of God.
Verse:
By proposing multiple designers, the objectors have revealed more obviously their main objective, anti Christianity not anti ID.
ID says nothing about the number of designers. Only that the intelligence must be massive to have created the universe. Maybe there was more than one? And if there were more than one, they must have been extremely integrated and coordinated to have produced the fine tuning.
Who knows? There may have been three of them?
In fact, assuming for the moment that “Intelligent Designers” are a real possibility, the overall nested hierarchy of common relatedness, matching phylogenetic and molecular trees, common genetic code and biochemical processes, all support a single designer or team using the niche as a design tool even as we speak.
Can you imagine the clash of egos under the multiple designer’s scenario? It would be a managerial nightmare. Would make the internecine conflicts within the Greek and Roman pantheons pale in comparison, not to mention the can of worms you open when Hinduism and Buddhism are thrown into the mix. No wonder it took 4 billion years just to get to human beings….
ChuckDarwin argues for Christianity.
Even more amazing than being a lawyer. New meaning to the concept of miracle.
Not bad until the end.
Niches are dead ends for change. They stop potential Evolution not facilitate it. Again the constant confusion of genetics with Evolution.
Also there are research approaches that would solve just when innovation was introduced into life types. But don’t expect evolutionary biologists to pursue it. The results would end their careers.
Richard Lenski says not so. And I agree with him. His Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) should have eventually run out of steam after
hundreds of thousands ofseventy-five thousand* generations in a deliberately simplified stable, unchanging niche environment (except for intraspecific competition) but that hasn’t happened.*Oops
Bornagain77: This is simply because multiple finite designers will never have the ‘infinite’ causal adequacy within themselves in order to explain the ‘collapse’ of even a single quantum wave.
Simply put, it takes an omniscient and omnipresent cause to explain the collapse of even a single quantum wave, and thus no finite cause will ever have the causal adequacy within itself in order to explain the collapse of a single quantum wave.
I’m not sure you’re correctly interpreting the notion of the ‘collapse’ of a quantum wave.
Remember that quantum mechanics has been shown to correctly model things at the quantum level many, many times over. The disagreements (Copenhagen vs Many Worlds views) come from trying to interpret what the equations mean in ‘the real world’. So . .. .
Please note the role that consciousness DOES NOT TAKE in the above. That is, no one is suggesting that a conscious mind is required. Or that it takes some omnipresent, omnipotent being. The ‘collapse’ comes about because by observing or measuring the wave function we are only seeing part of its many properties and so interpret it as a wave or a particle.
Again, no consciousness required. Only observation in the form of some kind of measurement.
What prevents ID proponents from pursuing such an approach. I’m intrigued. Can you give more details on what would be involved?
From http://www.quantumphysicslady......-function/
Again, notice how no consciousness is required.
Lenski’s LTEE experiment supports claims that niches lead no where.
Did you expect people not to read his results. It’s devolution all the way down. It’s an experiment in genetics not Evolution. It should be renamed, “Long Term Genetics Experiment” or LTGE.
It would take lots of money and resources, the kind that government lavishes on universities with evolutionary biologists.
It’s been presented to you several times. Apparently you have reading issues. That may explain your comments and why you are so continually wrong.
Everyone should read Behe’s book, “Darwin Devolves” especially chapters 6-9 to understand that Darwinian processes work in genetics not Evolution.
I never said that there must be multiple designers. All I am saying is that if you are using comparisons to human design to infer design in nature, then you can’t rule out multiple agents in the design of nature as a valid inference.
Jerry: Darwinian processes work in genetics not Evolution.
You should read Neil Shubin’s book Some Assembly Required. It’s quite up-to-date and explains a myriad of ways genetics affects evolution.
From: https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2020/03/25/book-review-some-assembly-required-decoding-four-billion-years-of-life-from-ancient-fossils-to-dna/
I found the book easy to read and fascinating. AND it addresses many of the objections you have. Give it a try.
VL at 25,
You apparently don’t understand God at all. That’s your choice. The default position or standard should never be the human. But here, a few insist on it. According to Catholic teaching, God creates from nothing. No human designer can match this. No question was dismissed. One poster here did not like the answer.
Querius at 26,
I work with genius level people. They can solve problems faster than I can and come up with ways to do things I would not have thought of. Inventor Thomas Edison had so many ideas he hired others to help him develop those ideas into real world products. Enough money was coming in to expand his base of operation. If it wasn’t for him we would not have the electronic devices we have today.
Querius at 31,
Be careful with definitions. There are inventors who develop things that never existed, like powered aircraft that could be flown by men. Innovators take existing ideas and improve them. Traffic light bulbs being replaced by LEDs for example, but someone had to invent LEDs first.
CD at 37,
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I have seen geniuses at work. There are two types of ego: One does seek to dominate and praise itself and seek praise, the other is open to all ideas but makes the best choices, and can show to those he works with why any particular choice is the better one.
I’m aware of everything you say and what Shubin says.
He has been brought up before. Now point to the facts where they made something happen. Just start with your best example, and see if you can back it up. I’m sure you will get a proper reception if there is anything of substance there.
Some will resist everything. Behe makes a point of accepting the process but then shows the process leads no where long term.
The real issue is new proteins. Which I always allude to and which can be easily researched but won’t because it would destroy natural Evolution as a proposition.
Actually, I have brought this idea up several times to examine
Jerry: Now point to the facts where they made something happen.
What ‘they’ are you talking about? What kind of ‘something’ are you talking about?
Dr Shubin discusses how some minor genetic changes can lead to physiological changes so if that’s your objection then, having read the book, you have some examples you can pick from.
(My copy of the book is not available at the moment so I can’t leaf through it an pick a particular example by page.)
Well JVL, first off, decoherence is now experientially falsified as a valid explanation for quantum wave collapse by what are termed ‘interaction-free’ measurements.
Secondly, many worlds has been falsified by the fact that many worlds denies the reality of quantum wave collapse. And yet quantum wave collapse has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect.
Finally, I would hold that it is much more precise to say that it is the free will of a conscious observer, rather than the consciousness of any particular human observer, that is required to complete the measurement process and to bring about the ‘collapse’ of the infinite dimensional wave function to a finite state.
As the late Steven Weinberg himself, a staunch atheist, honestly admitted, in the instrumentalist approach “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure”
In fact the late Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
For prime example, in 2018 Anton Zeilinger and company have now pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are (indeed) brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as the late Weinberg himself honestly admitted, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
That humans, via the free will of their immaterial mind, should be “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” should not be all that surprising for us to find out.
Specifically, the ‘contingency’ of the universe was a necessary presupposition that was essential for the rise of modern science inn Medieval Christian Europe.
Namely, a necessary Judeo-Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science was the belief that the universe is not ‘necessary’ in its existence, as atheists hold, (and the ancient Greeks held), but that the universe is ‘contingent’ upon the free will of God for its existence.
As Stephen Meyer stated elsewhere, “(contingency) was a huge concept,, (the order of the universe) is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise.”,,
And indeed, the belief in ‘contingency’, and/or the ‘divine will’ of God, played an integral role in Sir Isaac Newton’s founding of modern physics.
Specifically, and as the following article states, “Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of,,”
And since Newton also held the orthodox Christian belief that man is made in the image of God,,,
,,, and since Newton also held to the orthodox Christian belief that man is made in the image of God, (and since he explicitly rejected the mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy), then I hold that Newton would be very pleased to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics.
The closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole is literally experimental verification of Newton’s ‘prediction’ that, ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God”,,
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Verses:
Ba77 at 54,
It would be nice if everything is indeed as you write – all wrapped up. However, there are still things we cannot know about God, about Heaven or the future, even though prophecy exists that speaks to coming events. Yes, God created as stated in Colossians, but
Isaiah 55:8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.”
Bornagain77: decoherence is now experientially falsified as a valid explanation for quantum wave collapse by what are termed ‘interaction-free’ measurements.
Reference please.
many worlds has been falsified by the fact that many worlds denies the reality of quantum wave collapse. And yet quantum wave collapse has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect.
Again, it’s a question of interpretation. No one doubts that you can record a photon hitting a photographic plate but how that affects the wave function is not known.
I would hold that it is much more precise to say that it is the free will of a conscious observer, rather than the consciousness of any particular human observer, that is required to complete the measurement process and to ‘collapse’ the wave function.
I’m sure you would say that. Sadly, most physics folks disagree with you. Instead of just making assertions you should try and provide current and credible references to back up your assertions.
The fact that you might be able to find two or three Physics folks who seem to agree with you does not mean that is the general consensus of those in the field. At the very least you should acknowledge that instead of just saying everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
(Note: I’m not actually expecting you to change your mode of behaviour but I’d like to point out what would be normal procedure.)
Oh, and just to point it out: I don’t think Newton or Maxwell had anything to say about quantum mechanics. But I’m not surprised you’re trying to shift the topic away from something technical.
Should be obvious – anything of note.
The “they” are biological processes. The “something is a significant change.
I have not read the book. If there were anything significant in it, it would be all over the internet and especially in textbooks. Rather, silence.
You just pointed to speculation, not some documented cause and effect of substantial change. That all there ever is, speculation and wishful thinking.
Jerry: Should be obvious – anything of note.
Well, if I remember correctly, Dr Shubin discusses the evolution of lungs, that’s surely ‘of note’.
I have not read the book. If there were anything significant in it, it would be all over the internet and especially in textbooks. Rather, silence.
It takes awhile for textbooks to update. And you logic (if it was important I would have heard about it) is faulty.
You just pointed to speculation, not some documented cause and effect of substantial change. That all there ever is, speculation and wishful thinking.
Dr Shubin discusses the research done. You are arguing out of ignorance admittedly not having read the book.
I am NOT going to reproduce large chunks of a text you admittedly haven’t read to try and prove a point, and not just because I don’t want to run afoul of copyright laws.
If you choose not to even attempt to follow up on easily accessible reference replies to your queries then I’m not sure what to do.
From https://www.google.com/books/edition/Some_Assembly_Required/_OTcDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
That all sounds ‘of note’ to me. Perhaps you should check your local library or ebay for a used copy.
Or live in ignorance. Your call.
JVL at 58,
“Over billions of years, ancient fish evolved to walk on land, reptiles transformed into birds that fly, and apelike primates evolved into humans that walk on two legs, talk, and write. For more than a century, paleontologists have traveled the globe to find fossils that show how such changes have happened.”
Hoo boy. Yeah, I’ve got photos on the wall from when my ancestors were fish. Not credible. Not credible at all.
Relatd: Hoo boy. Yeah, I’ve got photos on the wall from when my ancestors were fish. Not credible. Not credible at all.
Well, you could read the book. It’s not that expensive. It’s quite accessible. Dr Shubin cites all the pertinent research he discusses.
Again, I am NOT going to reproduce a whole book that you haven’t read. If you want to know what it says read it. I bet your local library has a copy.
You pointed to Evolution, not the cause of it.
The Evolution fact which you highlighted is part of ID. The Evolution debate is over cause and effect. ID explains everything you and Shubin brought up. Welcome to ID supporters.
JVL at 60,
You ignored the core concept. Evolution is dead. Deader than a doornail. But you’ll invent characterizations for those who see zero evidence of what you think happened. And there is zero evidence.
Jerry: You pointed to Evolution, not the cause of it.
What? The ’cause’ of evolution? From whose point of view? I think evolution comes about because some variants have characteristics which give them an ecological advantage. There is no ’cause’. The mechanism is selection based on heritable variation.
The Evolution fact which you highlighted is part of ID. The Evolution debate is over cause and effect. ID explains everything you and Shubin brought up. Welcome to ID supporters.
Look, I’ve been trying really hard to answer your queries. You admittedly haven’t read a book which I think addresses many of the issues you bring up. The book is not expensive, your local library probably has a copy. And you keep sliding the topic all over the place.
Related @49, 50
Agreed! Incidentally, A number of materials, including diamonds, give off light when an electric current passes through them.
Also in agreement here. I’ve found that there are different forms of genius. Ego, generally just gets in the way. And very ordinary people often have inspiring flashes of insight (I have anecdotes). One of the problems with insights is that they often get filtered out way too early. If you’re interested in more of this, let me recommend Edward de Bono’s “six thinking hats” to help understand the dynamics of groups and meetings:
https://www.debonogroup.com/services/core-programs/six-thinking-hats/
In my experience, “black hat” thinking is all too common and stifles creative approaches and solutions. Black hats certainly have valuable contributions, but not during brainstorming.
A lot of the detractors here often exhibit typical black hat thinking and are unlikely to come up with anything innovative, preferring their dark world of unquestioning scientific conformity.
-Q
Querius at 64,
I’ve seen the various types of dynamics at play. There are people with great technical skill who have no imagination. Who cannot develop other things. Then there are some ‘project managers’ in various fields who have a lot of money but little or no imagination. They want to see things get done but do not want to really understand what’s involved. It involves a “I’ve given you the money now give me the product I want” approach. Sometimes, what is desired cannot be done, or completed with the money available.
I’ve been involved in brainstorming. Basically, people throw out ideas looking for the best solution. However, depending on what the project or goal is, creative thinking is required. Coming up with new ideas is preferable.
Take military aircraft design. Specifications for a new aircraft are sent to various manufacturers. The aircraft needs a certain speed, range and bomb load, for example. The manufacturers then respond with what they can do and what it would cost. Sometimes, it can’t be done. Other times, an aircraft with superior performance in one or more areas can be produced. This was especially true in the 1950s.
Jerry (to me)
Yet it is still ongoing. Your remark is obviously flat out wrong.
I hope they will. That’s why I linked to Professor Lenski’s site, where the information is readily available.
Nonsense. The beauty of the experiment is the simplicity. In the twelve tribes, initially clones, evolutionary change has been different, notwithstanding identical niches. This was unexpected.
In case anyone missed it:
https://the-ltee.org/
JVL, your rebuttal is basically incoherent nonsense. And thus I’ll let my post stand as stated, with just the requested citations added for clarity for unbiased readers, (if there be any unbiased readers reading this thread)..
The following video also clearly explains why decoherence does not explain quantum wave collapse,
As to Many Worlds, the Many worlds model denies the reality of wave function collapse.
Thus since wave function collapse is now experimentally shown to be a real effect, Many Worlds is now experimentally falsified,
Let me do a resume: Lenski experiment is a dud , darwinian evolution is nonsense .
Relatd @65,
My experience as well . . . What’s also helpful is to challenge assumptions (after listing them) and challenge requirements (as in, what is this requirement based on and why is it important).
Such challenges are often missing from discussions with many academics. “What would happen if X turned out to be untrue?” I’d bet criminal detectives often ask themselves such questions from their interviews.
-Q
Querius at 69,
Scientific research involves asking questions and attempting to find answers. Fundamental scientific research involves studying various problems in order to find out how things work or how to use new data to solve up till now, unsolved questions in science. Academics can study a lot but it takes time. Unless one is already working in some branch of science, I think most people aren’t able to contribute much.
Requirements are stated correctly the first time. The desired goal or product may not be able to be completed or built at the time. A lack of equipment or some gaps in knowledge may exist to prevent fully investigating something or making/building something.
As far as assumptions, it takes skilled people to supervise and direct any scientific endeavor. Assumptions are fine. In some cases, the answer, or possible answer, will not be obvious in a short time. In other cases, rapid progress can be made.
No, it’s flat out correct.
The proof is that you provide no evidence of anything of substance happening. The world would be all over it if anything really happened.
Why don’t you point to something beside trivial changes caused by devolution? That would start a discussion here on anything you see as important.
Yes, it’s flat out wrong.
Nonsense. Though rapid climate change is threatening extinction to many species, including ours.
I doubt I’m going to convince anyone here that evolution is the only convincing explanation for the way life on Earth is now and how it changed since the first living organisms got going on Earth. The best I hope for is to point out that most evolution critics here have no idea of how the theory of evolution works. Though to be fair, nobody can tell me how “Intelligent Design” works either. UD seems a repository for failing explainers.
Let me translate.
Aside: how delicious it would be for the anti ID people to prove the ID people wrong but no evidence is ever forthcoming to do so. Instead we just get assertions. Wonder why?
Aside2: proof to support a position on evolution is asked for. What do we get. Something on the horrors of climate change.
“since the first living organisms got going”
AF,
But that’s the whole game… how the first living organisms got going. Did you comment that with a straight face?
Andrew
Andrew at 74,
C’mon. You’ve just got to accept that on faith. Organisms appear and they get more complex for no particular reason, develop certain body parts, like wings, for no particular reason, find food – somehow – and continue on their purposeless, no -pre-planning way.
All you need is a large curtain, millions of years – lots of magic – and things JUST HAPPEN – for no particular reason.
Make sense? Of course not.
Bornagain77: your rebuttal is basically incoherent nonsense.
When I see a lot of physicists queuing up to support your view then I shall reconsider mine.
You’re on a fringe. You know you’re on a fringe. The very least you can and should do is to acknowledge that. But you won’t.
JVL at 76,
As if to say: ‘My purpose here is to characterize others as I see fit.’
ID and related discoveries in quantum mechanics, along with confirmed scientific data, is pushing Darwinism/Evolution over the edge of the cliff. Man is directly linked to the quantum world.
Yes indeed. Nobody knows how life on Earth got started. There’s certainly no ID explanation. There are many ideas being offered and discussed in the mainstream scientific community, but there’s no way as yet been found to test them. It’ll be ten years before those rock samples get back from Mars and James Webb is producing amazing images. There’s always the chance of a second data point in the future.
JVL, whatever. If rejecting the insanity of the atheist’s conjecture of Many Worlds, (and accepting the experimental reality of wave function collapse and the experimental falsification of decoherence), is truly to be considered ‘fringe’ then I am proudly ‘fringe’.
Here is a bit deeper look at the many logical fallacies inherent in the atheist’s Many Worlds Interpretation:
Relatd: ID and related discoveries in quantum mechanics, along with confirmed scientific data, is pushing Darwinism/Evolution over the edge of the cliff. Man is directly linked to the quantum world.
Let’s just talk about scientific data, evidence and research shall we?
You seem quite happy to challenge things but when someone presents you with supported replies you’re not so good at addressing them.
I have repeated referenced an easy to access, readily available, written for general readers book which, I think, addresses many of the issue you’d like to see addressed. I understand that, in the course of one day or evening, you haven’t had the chance to read that book but don’t you think that someone who was actually interested in the sincere answers to their queries would at least stop throwing bricks until they had had a chance to read the material they had asked for?
You have asked for explanations. I have suggested a source of explanations. If you have no intentions of pursuing that source that’s up to you. But do you expect me to continue to try and reply if you choose to ignore the material I present?
Are you interested in views opposing yours or not? If not then please stop asking for those holding views opposing to your to support them. It’s just insulting to ask for explanations and then not even attempt to digest them.
Bornagain77: whatever. If rejecting the insanity of the atheist’s conjecture of Many Worlds, (and accepting the experimental reality of wave function collapse and the experimental falsification of decoherence), is truly to be considered ‘fringe’ then I am proudly ‘fringe’.
So, if we stick with the latest and best scientific explanations for ‘the collapse’ of the wave function we can put your ideas at the back of the queue?
If we have to make a choice between those who have spent years of their lives studying the science and can actually do the math behind the theory AND those who clearly have an ideological bias in favour of a particular interpretation then what should we do?
If we wanted to build a bridge should we trust the person who had studied bridge building or the person who had read Aristotle?
Andrew,
Look at this bird: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/54551597
7,500 miles in 11 days. No map, no GPS. By accident? Of course not.
Quote of note, “when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,,”
Sorry, Jerry, missed your comment earlier. Late for me so I’ll just leave you this link to follow.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219574110
JVL at 80,
Some people here still cling to the idea that the only reason some here have not accepted evolution is because they don’t understand it. Trust me. Prior to posting on this site I read a lot from people offering me citations from here and there that they said showed evolution was factual. It was not persuasive then and it’s not persuasive now. I mean they really made an effort to “educate” me.
You have fallen into the “all opinions are equal” trap. It tells people that there are two sides to every argument. But it leaves out the fact that both sides can’t be right. In the case of Evolution versus ID, I choose ID since it makes far more sense. Far more. Even after many attempts to ‘educate’ me.
Feel free to stop replying to me.
JVL: “If we wanted to build a bridge should we trust the person who had studied bridge building or the person who had read Aristotle?”
So by your own analogy of trusting people who build bridges, we should trust the people who ‘built’ quantum mechanics?
Okie Dokie JVL. Let’s do that. Here is what the leading ‘builders’ of quantum mechanics have to say,
So JVL, are you going to take your own advice and trust the people who ‘built’ Quantum Mechanics?
Alan
The way populations change over time has a well through out model. The origin of the populations is a much bigger problem and the idea that life had a single origin is almost certainly wrong.
Here is bonus quote for you JVL
Bornagain77 @88,
Not to mention that all scientific breakthroughs were at first vigorously opposed by the science establishment.
Intellectual curiosity and openness is notably absent in the comments by Darwinists here, who continue to support a failed 19th century racist theory used to rationalize European colonialism. After all, if humans evolved and continue to evolve, then according to Darwinism and eugenicists, some humans are always more “evolved” than others, right?
I find the well-known programs resulting from this concept morally repugnant as well as unscientific.
-Q
At least you have been taking your arguments beyond the pale of UD. Though the regulars at Peaceful Science are giving you a rough ride.
Tell about this positive evidence for separate origins. Is it anything like baramins and the ark?
Bornagain77: So by your own analogy of trusting people who build bridges, we should trust the people who ‘built’ quantum mechanics?
Too funny. You take a throw-away metaphor I made and try and win a scientific argument with that?
Okay, ’cause you didn’t get it the first time I shall rephrase: I would rather trust someone who HAS been building bridges for a long time and who was up-to-date on modern materials, design, health and safety, etc.
Or, so you don’t try and twist it all again: I will take the word of modern physicists who have the benefit of almost a century of new results and data over that of the people who first conceived of quantum mechanics.
See, I try and keep up with the times instead of sifting through history to find the people whose quotes I can mine to support my view.
Relatd: Prior to posting on this site I read a lot from people offering me citations from here and there that they said showed evolution was factual. It was not persuasive then and it’s not persuasive now.
So are you saying that when you ask a question or for some new data or results I should bother trying to find them for you?
You have fallen into the “all opinions are equal” trap.
Actually, I do not believe that. But I’m trying to be polite in order to have a civilised conversation. If you’re interested.
In the case of Evolution versus ID, I choose ID since it makes far more sense. Far more. Even after many attempts to ‘educate’ me.
You are clearly an intelligent person and have taken the time to consider quite a lot of information, data and research and have come to a considered conclusion. I have no problem with that. But it does mean that when you ask if there’s anything new or recent that might change your mind and then indicate you have no intention of considering anything that is presented to you makes me wonder a) why you bother to ask and b) why any of us should bother to reply?
Feel free to stop replying to me.
I rather like pointing out that your information may not be up-to-date.
It always amuses me when ID proponents bring up Darwin over and over and over again. It’s like arguing about modern physics via Newton. Evolutionary theory has come a long ways in the last 150 years and continues to change with new data and new evidence. As it should!! How can you be sure your reservations about the field have not been addressed if you don’t keep up?
JVL, “I will take the word of modern physicists who have the benefit of almost a century of new results and data over that of the people who first conceived of quantum mechanics.”
Aside from the fact that certainly not all modern physicists support your atheistic worldview, (for instance Anton Zeilinger, whom I quoted, does not support your atheistic worldview), JVL do you really believe that “new results and data” somehow support your belief in Atheistic Naturalism and/or Atheistic Materialism?
I have news for you JVL, (despite what you may believe in your fevered atheistic imagination), from the falsification of hidden variables, to the violation of Leggett’s inequality, to the closing of all the ‘loopholes’ that atheists have appealed to, to etc.. etc.., advances in quantum mechanics over the past several decades have consistently, and only, made things much, much, worse for atheistic materialists, not better.
Verse:
If anyone should try to bring up Lenski’s genetic experiments, they should read this first to understand that after 75,000 generations nothing new has happened.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15
A huge deal was made of the citrate usage change, one accomplished in as few as 12 generations in the above experiment. It was already there.
Lenski has been covered on UD several times. Why anyone brings up his genetic experiments is beyond me. They all argue for ID. Here is one from a couple years ago.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-how-the-new-lenski-paper-demonstrates-a-key-problem-with-darwinism/
Bornagain77: Aside from the fact that certainly not all modern physicists support your atheistic worldview, (for instance Anton Zeilinger, whom I quoted, does not support your atheistic worldview), JVL do you really believe that “new results and data” somehow support your belief in Atheistic Naturalism and/or Atheistic Materialism?
Huh? We were talking science, not theology! What does the collapse of the wave function have to do with God? Aside from your assertion that it does. Show me some actual science that ties them together.
Whoa!!!
From someone who has never presented any actual science that ties things together. Just yesterday was asked to do so and then punted on first down.
Appropriate photo on similar behavior
https://www.lucianne.com/images/daily_photos/2022/09/20/009f3147-74c5-4bb6-acd4-d30c6b6fdc00.jpeg
Broken link, Jerry.
Jerry: From someone who has never presented any actual science that ties things together. Just yesterday was asked to do so and then punted on first down.
I guess mentioning a book, easy to find, not expensive, that I think answers at least some of your concerns doesn’t count.
What do I have to do? Violate copyright and reproduce the whole thing here before you’ll consider the points it makes?
Since you clearly aren’t actually interested in a) having a conversation or b) examining new bits of information that you were unaware of . . . why should I or anyone bother to attempt to respond to your queries?
JVL, “Huh? We were talking science, not theology!”
JVL, you do realize that to ‘talk science’ is to necessarily presuppose Theism to be true do you not?
Here are the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe. Presuppositions that are STILL very much essential for ‘doing science’ today.
JVL, directly contrary to your belief that science is somehow independent of Judeo-Christian presuppositions, all of science proceeds, and is still dependent, upon presuppositions that were born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview.
You simply can’t do and/or ‘talk science’ without first presupposing Theism to be true. As Paul Davies noted, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Moreover, as the following article by Robert Koons, professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, states, “Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.”
Again JVL, directly contrary to what you believe, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is dependent upon the Theistic presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based upon the Atheistic presupposition of ‘methodological naturalism’ as atheists adamantly hold.
Moreover, presupposing Atheistic naturalism, instead of Theism, as being true, as Atheists adamantly insist that we do with their presupposition of ‘methodological naturalism’, drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Thus in conclusion JVL, you may want to ‘talk science’, not theology, but alas for you, to ‘talk science’ is to assume Theism to be true. You wanting to ‘talk science’, and not theology, is similar to you wanting to walk around without having any legs to do so.
Supplemental note:
ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility. ,,, Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is vitally and crucially dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our minds to comprehend that rational intelligibility.
– Sept 2022
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-did-life-first-arise-by-purely-natural-means/#comment-765639
Works for me.
Just tried it again. It’s a US accumulation site for mostly political articles. Have any US users had any problems? It’s just an image, a political cartoon.
AF, I had to cut and paste the link to get it to work.
https://www.lucianne.com/images/daily_photos/2022/09/20/009f3147-74c5-4bb6-acd4-d30c6b6fdc00.jpeg
Bornagain77: you do realize that to ‘talk science’ is to necessarily presuppose Theism to be true do you not?
No, I do not believe that to be the case. There is no reason that a non-theistic being could not observe patterns and some cause-and-effect situations in their experience and start to want to see what kind of events always precede other events without supposing that there was some . . . thing responsible for that happening.
But I know you love to trot out that wheeze all the time. That doesn’t make it true however.
AND, if there is no deity where does that leave the foundations of science?
directly contrary to your belief that science is somehow independent of Judeo-Christian presuppositions, all of science proceeds, and is still dependent, upon presuppositions that were born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview.
This is where your bigotry really shines through. You don’t think theology is necessary for science to work, you think CHRISTIAN theology is necessary. So all those Chinese people who were essentially doing science before they knew anything about Christ were mistaken. So all those Greeks and Romans and Egyptians who were building pyramids and aqueducts and the Pantheon and temples and roads were not being scientific. So all the New World natives who built immense pyramids and structures to an incredible precision . . . those heathens were clearly not doing science.
You should be ashamed of your bias but I know you’re not. I’m not talking about your faith, I have no problem with that. It’s the way you denigrate and bad-mouth everyone who doesn’t agree with you that turns my stomach. I wonder what Jesus would think of your Holier-than-thou attitude?
JVL, I’ll gladly let my post stand as stated in the face of your incoherent ‘grasping at straws’ rambling.
Bornagain77: I gladly let my post stand as stated in the face of your incoherent ‘grabbing at straws’ rambling.
I’m sure you would rather than addressing the clear fact that many non-Christian cultures achieved high levels of technical/scientific achievements.
That’s not how real scientists behave when confronted with data that runs counter to their pet ‘theory’. Even if they want to stick to their guns they try and find more evidence in support of their view instead of just putting their fingers in their ears and walking away.
But, you’re not a scientist are you? Why are we taking your views seriously at all?
JVL repeats his false ‘grasping at straws’ claim that modern science arose in other cultures.
Ba77,
Your research is sound. However, I think cries of ‘atheists can do science’ will continue. The Catholic Church recognizes the limits science has set for itself and it also studies science. When “science” infringes on matters having to do with the true identity of the human person, the Church must speak up. In defense of the truth. In defense of science, as far as science can go.
The conflict will remain since those who believe in men only will say, ‘This is true. Leave religion out of it.’ But is it true as science? Can evolution be demonstrated? No.
Belief and unbelief will clash, but the truth will remain.
Bornagain77: repeats his false ‘grasping at straws’ claim that modern science arose in other cultures.
To claim that the achievements of non-Christian cultures were ‘technical’ but not scientific is sheer arrogance.
Over 2000 years before Christ was even born the Egyptians were learning to build extremely large pyramids. There is plenty of evidence showing how they had to experiment with different heights and angles. Plus, in order to learn how to mine and carve and place the massive stones they were moving around requires generations of experimentation, recording and refinement. And that’s not scientific?
At the same time, in NW Europe . . . people who didn’t even have a system of writing figured out how to design and arrange and build Stonehenge. Now, how did they know how to orient the monument? They kept some kind of record over generations of where the sun rose and set at certain times of the years. They made observations, they assumed there was a pattern that was dependably repeated year after year, they marked out the configuration, they figured out how to shape and move and place massive stones. Oh but that’s not science. That’s guessing and experimenting and testing and revising and making new guesses but that’s not science.
Shall we throw the Greeks and their mathematicians into the mix? Aristotle was not a scientist? Archimedes was not a scientist? Really? Seriously? I’d chuck Pythagoras into that mix but he (and his school) were mathematicians BUT, I’d argue, that the logic and thought behind mathematics IS the basis methodology of science. Let’s see if the pattern we’ve observed holds and/or when does it hold.
You keep posting links to comments from people who have the same arrogant attitude that you do instead of actually addressing the examples I have provided which should, at the very least, make any honest person question their stance. But you’d rather double down and refuse to consider anything which contradicts your view.
If you want to say that Archimedes was not doing science be my guest. But I think you’ll find that many people will not be taking you seriously.
Unsurprisingly, JVL continues desperately ‘grasping at straws’.
http://explorevenango.com/wp-c.....600-LA.jpg
JVL, in his desperation of ‘grasping at straws’, mentioned the Ancient Greeks, particularly JVL asked “Aristotle was not a scientist?”
This is an interesting false claim for JVL to make since the inductive methodology of the scientific method itself, via Francis Bacon, was the result of Bacon directly repudiating the deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, particularly of Aristotle.
Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was championed by Francis Bacon over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks, in 1620, in his book that was entitled ‘Novum Organum’. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.
In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work ‘Organon’, which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, ‘Organum’ was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of ‘bottom-up’ inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon in his inductive methodology, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from the ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominant form of reasoning up to that time.
And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated dogmatic Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning of the Ancient Greeks that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.
As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might offer empirical support for his theory in “Origin of Species”.
And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”
Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.
Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, honestly confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
And now, over a century and a half later, the situation of ‘the facts won’t fit’ still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,
As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
In fact, it is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’.
Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (masquerading as a empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
In short, and to repeat, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as true empirical sciences normally do), has instead produced nothing but unimaginably horrid consequences for man..
Verse:
Thus in conclusion, JVL may repeatedly falsely claim that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought modern science into existence, but that baseless claim does nothing to alleviate the fact that his very own atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution is not even based on the scientific method, i.e. the inductive methodology, of Francis Bacon in the first place.
If JVL were the least bit intellectually honest, this catastrophic failure of his own Darwinian worldview to be grounded within the inductive methodology of the scientific method itself should concern him greatly.
But alas, JVL has shown himself to be as impervious to reason as Seversky, Alan Fox, and ChuckyD are.
Ba77 at 109,
I think the evidence shows that the issue is not being “impervious to reason” but keeping the evolution story going. This does two things: Keeps people guessing, especially people who think that there must be some merit to these repeated comments about evolution. And to create confusion. Are living things actually designed? Or do they only look designed?
If the dam should break, and ID gains wide acceptance, then certain worldviews would collapse. This catastrophe – for those against ID – must be avoided. So the troops have been stationed here to continue to promote an idea that has been discredited. Living things are designed.
Appeals to reason do not appear to stop those mentioned from keeping the story of evolution going.
Bornagain77: JVL, in his desperation of ‘grasping at straws’, mentioned the Ancient Greeks, particularly JVL asked “Aristotle was not a scientist?” This is an interesting false claim for JVL to make since the inductive methodology of the scientific method itself, via Francis Bacon, was the result of Bacon directly repudiating the deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, particularly of Aristotle.
Really? So the ancient Greeks did nothing to forward the advance of knowledge? Isn’t that part of the definition of science?
I tell you what; why don’t you spell out, clearly, why the ancient Greeks technique, which you’ve hinted at, was not able to come to similar conclusions as we do today. Give us a particular example of how their approach limited their results.
Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
Interesting that you then should make a top-down argument for the rationality of the universe. Curious isn’t it?
In fact, let’s make sure we are NOT making a top-down argument. Let’s make sure that we are favouring something more .. . . bottom up. I’m good with that. Are you? That means letting go of the great designer in the sky who dictates everything. That’s okay with you?
ID is a clear top-down argument. Are you good with that?
JVL, whatever!
A few quotes from the Christian founders of Modern science.
Caspian:
The issue is stronger than that, once we factor in logic of being issues and the nature of our own being i/l/o our being rational, responsible, significantly free and morally governed creatures:
1: Credibly, we exist as that sort of creature in a going concern world exhibiting fine tuning.
2: In our cells, we see coded algorithmic information in D/RNA, pointing to language using intelligence, goal directed process and sophisticated knowledge of polymer chemistry.
3: That chemistry, in turn, is directly connected to the fine tuning of the observed cosmos — the only actually observed cosmos.
4: Recall, a baseline anthropic principle, the root of reality, must be such that it is compatible with and can adequately cause such a world.
5: The causal chain leading to this going concern world of today involves cosmological sense time, thus a causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained succession of stages, years for simplicity. Thermodynamics, being utterly fundamental physics.
6: No such succession of finite stages succeeding to now can be explicitly or implicitly transfinite, as finite stage succession cannot attain to an actual infinity. (This is best seen by setting the integer mileposted reals in the context of the hyperreals and asking for a definition of such stepwise succession that would not require transfinitely remote past actual stages, then requesting a showing of how the succession from such to now would only include finitely remote stages. The usual attempted counter is to refuse to wee that wider context.)
7: Similarly, a world from utter non being runs into, that were such the case there is no causal capability. So, if it ever was so that utter non being obtains, such would de the case “forever.”
8: Circular retrocausation, is a similar case of trying to pull a world from a non existent hat.
9: We are looking at inherently finitely remote origin of our world, including any pre singularity circumstances.
10: Thus our cosmos is inherently contingent and requires a finitely remote reality root of a different order, necessary, worlds framework being. Such NB’s are part of the fabric for any world to exist.
11: Further to this, a serious candidate NB — flying spaghetti monsters etc need not apply [material, constructed of arrangement of proper parts so inherently contingent] — is either as impossible of being as a square circle [mutually inconsistent core attributes] or is actual. Try to imagine a world where twoness does not exist, begins or ceases, the exercise is impossible.
12: Further, such NB reality root must be compatible with and causally adequate for a world of morally governed creatures.
13: That requires the inherently good and utterly wise, as well as necessary [so, eternal] being and capability to create worlds such as ours. A familiar set of requisites.
14: So, a serious candidate is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty, and of our reasonable service by doing the good that accords with our morally governed nature.
15: One may object of course, but that requires good reason as to why such a candidate is not a serious candidate or is impossible of being. The problem of evil having been tamed through Plantinga’s free will defence, that’s a tough row to hoe.
KF
There’s absolutely no connection between the physical templating of DNA replication and human language.
JVL,
We all know of individuals and even initiatives such as Archimedes and early Astronomy or geography.
We also know that they never amounted to a coherent, civilisation wide transformational movement.
That emerged just once, transcending antecedents. It arose in a culture where the world was understood to be rational and by design in key parts intelligible to us, where we are error prone and sometimes irresponsible, so empirical observation was needed as a source of facts and corrective to Greek style speculation or the global temptation to magic. (Notice, Newton’s own involvement in Alchemy.)
That happened during the run up to the Scientific revolution, in a theistic-redemptive culture conducive to reformation and valuing truth as reflective of the Creator, Truth himself. A culture that self-identified as Christendom.
The attempted replacement cultural vision, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers, runs into a serious roadblock identified by Haldane:
Do I need to say, stolen valour and stolen achievements?
KF
PS, Peterson:
AF, red herring led away to a strawman and you full well know it. You know or should acknowledge that D/RNA contains codes used algorithmically in protein synthesis but refuse to do so because of its import for your preferred ideology. I again point you to Lehninger’s literary heirs:
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
KF
DNA is much more complex than human language because is a living language. Imagine word “bread” becoming actually bread, DNA does that while a word “bread” written in a book will have no real influence on the world.
LCD, my Baker friend begs to differ: he uses bread making recipes to create bread and of course “bread” is stated therein. But then, the computer envisioned in the original Turing thought exercise was a man or woman doing the job [my Dad was inter alia a computer . . . used to be a job description, e.g. he could add up three columns at any length in his head and would mentally cross check a calculator]. An algorithm in the end is a recipe, you gotta get ingredients and equipment, start then proceed correctly to completion. You also need a capable entity to carry out and supervise the process. Information is key to all of that. KF
Well, I don’t know how you could measure the complexity of either to draw that conclusion. Seems like a job for ID to tackle. Ideas, anyone?
AF, the coding in DNA is integrated with advanced polymer chemistry, molecular nanotech execution machinery. Such is further integrated in a metabolising, von Neumann kinematic self replicating automaton. Those are well known. We have identified but for seventy odd years have been unable to effect a von Neumann kinematic self replicator. We could argue in response that spoken or written language rests on that prior entity but it is in itself much less exacting in design requisites, witness artificial languages such as Esperanto and hundreds of computer languages. KF