Fine tuning The God Hypothesis

Who is the Designer of ID?

Spread the love

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?

120 Replies to “Who is the Designer of ID?

  1. 1
    Viola Lee says:

    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.

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    Well, there you have it, all nicely wrapped up with a bow……

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    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.

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Well, there you have it, all nicely wrapped up with a bow

    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

  5. 5
    relatd says:

    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.

  6. 6
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Relatd #5
    Don’t break the spell, R. You will lose your chance at having it taught in public schools.

  7. 7
    relatd says:

    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.

  8. 8
    Alan Fox says:

    Related makes tongue-in-cheek suggestions for candidate “Intelligent Designers.”

    1) Aliens.

    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.

    2) Beings from another dimension who woke up one day and decided to create this dimension and universe.

    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.

  9. 9
    chuckdarwin says:

    AF/8
    Which, of course, negates the whole “ID isn’t religion” silliness……

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    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.

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/7

    1) Aliens.

    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.

    2) Beings from another dimension who woke up one day and decided to create this dimension and universe.

    It’s possible but a tad speculative.

    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, because the lack of evidence means we have no good reason to tack them on. Burden of proof, old bean.

    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.”

    Darwin made it clear he didn’t know how it all came about. We still don’t. Not very satisfactory but there it is.

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    EDIT: Oops, looks like I’m a little late. Oh well.

    As Jerry said

    But that’s not ID

    The source of that intelligence is currently not accessible to scientific experimentation.

    As Relatd said

    But here, it’s “Let’s just throw a big blanket over the possibility because God means religion and…”

    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

  13. 13
    relatd says:

    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.”

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    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

  15. 15
    relatd says:

    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!”

  16. 16
    Querius says:

    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

  17. 17
    Viola Lee says:

    Wow!

  18. 18
    Sir Giles says:

    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?

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    SG at 18,

    If the designer is God then no human comparison is applicable.

  20. 20
    relatd says:

    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.

  21. 21
    chuckdarwin says:

    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…..

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    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.

  23. 23
    Sir Giles says:

    If the designer is God then no human comparison is applicable.

    Non sequitur. Would you like to answer the question?

  24. 24
    relatd says:

    SG at 23,

    I guess I have no answer that would be acceptable.

  25. 25
    Viola Lee says:

    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

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    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

  27. 27
    Viola Lee says:

    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.

  28. 28
    Sir Giles says:

    In my experience, teams refine, but individuals innovate.

    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?

  29. 29
    Belfast says:

    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.

  30. 30
    Querius says:

    Viola Lee @27,

    I don’t think you can dismiss the idea [of multiple designers] because of parsimony.

    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

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    Sir Giles @28,

    I’m not sure I agree with that.

    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

  32. 32
    Alan Fox says:

    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.)

  33. 33
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Doesn’t this strongly suggest that the universe and life were the result of multiple designers working together?

    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 .

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    Wave function
    Excerpt: As has been demonstrated, the set of all possible wave functions in some representation for a system constitute an in general infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#More_on_wave_functions_and_abstract_state_space
    “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.

    Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics?
    You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example).
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark
    Excerpt:,,, we describe even a single bit of quantum information (a qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals.
    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    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.

    Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God: Definition
    Excerpt: Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence
    Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God’s power is infinite, or limitless.

    Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future. Nothing takes him by surprise. His knowledge is total. He knows all that there is to know and all that can be known.

    Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once.
    https://study.com/academy/lesson/omnipotent-omniscient-and-omnipresent-god-definition-lesson-quiz.html

    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.

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!”
    – Johannes Kepler – (stated shortly after elucidating the mathematical laws of planetary motion)

    Keep It Simple – – by Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    Verse:

    Psalm 115:2-3
    Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in heaven; He does as He pleases.

    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.,,”

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,, The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    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. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf

    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’.

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    And the last time I checked, miracles are considered to be the sole province of God.

    mir·a·cle – definition
    ,, a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
    “the miracle of rising from the grave”

    Verse:

    John 3:1-2
    Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
    He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    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?

  36. 36
    Alan Fox says:

    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.

  37. 37
    chuckdarwin says:

    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….

  38. 38
    jerry says:

    ChuckDarwin argues for Christianity.

    Even more amazing than being a lawyer. New meaning to the concept of miracle.

  39. 39
    jerry says:

    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

    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.

  40. 40
    Alan Fox says:

    Niches are dead ends for change. They stop potential Evolution not facilitate it.

    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 of seventy-five thousand* generations in a deliberately simplified stable, unchanging niche environment (except for intraspecific competition) but that hasn’t happened.

    *Oops

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    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 . .. .

    The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics principally attributed to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It is one of the oldest attitudes towards quantum mechanics, as features of it date to the development of quantum mechanics during 1925–1927, and it remains one of the most commonly taught. There is no definitive historical statement of what is the Copenhagen interpretation, and there were in particular fundamental disagreements between the views of Bohr and Heisenberg. For example, Heisenberg emphasized a sharp “cut” between the observer (or the instrument) and the system being observed,? while Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer or measurement or collapse, which relies on an “irreversible” or effectively irreversible process which imparts the classical behavior of “observation” or “measurement”.

    Features common to Copenhagen-type interpretations include the idea that quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic, with probabilities calculated using the Born rule, and the principle of complementarity, which states that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously. Moreover, the act of “observing” or “measuring” an object is irreversible, no truth can be attributed to an object except according to the results of its measurement. Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists’ mental arbitrariness.? The statistical interpretation of wavefunctions due to Max Born differs sharply from Schrödinger’s original intent, which was to have a theory with continuous time evolution and in which wavefunctions directly described physical reality.

    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.

    The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which a universal wavefunction obeys the same deterministic, reversible laws at all times; in particular there is no (indeterministic and irreversible) wavefunction collapse associated with measurement. The phenomena associated with measurement are claimed to be explained by decoherence, which occurs when states interact with the environment. More precisely, the parts of the wavefunction describing observers become increasingly entangled with the parts of the wavefunction describing their experiments. Although all possible outcomes of experiments continue to lie in the wavefunction’s support, the times at which they become correlated with observers effectively “split” the universe into mutually unobservable alternate histories.

    Again, no consciousness required. Only observation in the form of some kind of measurement.

  42. 42
    Alan Fox says:

    Also there are research approaches that would solve just when innovation was introduced into life types.

    What prevents ID proponents from pursuing such an approach. I’m intrigued. Can you give more details on what would be involved?

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    From http://www.quantumphysicslady......-function/

    Getting back to the photon shot from the laser gun. Soon enough, the photon is detected as a little dark dot on the photographic plate. Physicists would say that it has been “measured.” “Measured” really means that the photon has had an interaction with something in the physical universe. This interaction allows us to detect the photon. In this case, the photon is absorbed by an electron in the photographic plate, which creates a dark spot on the plate. Upon measurement, that is, this interaction, the probabilities calculated by the wave function instantaneously convert to a 100% probability for the specific dark spot and 0% everywhere else. The wave function has “collapsed.”

    The failure of the wave function to describe what happens when the photon interacts with the physical universe and is detected is called the “Measurement Problem.” This is the problem that the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment (as described below) was designed to highlight. The Measurement Problem has additional aspects including an inability to rigorously define “measurement.” In the Copenhagen Interpretation, the interpretation that this article focuses on, measurement is defined in a general way as the quantum particle interacting with a macroscopic object. The Copenhagen Interpretation, itself, provides no mathematical description of this interaction. However, other interpretations do. And the theory of decoherence when added to the Copenhagen Interpretation also provides a mathematical description of the interaction.

    In the 1920’s and 1930’s physicists speculated about the collapse of the wave function. What was it about detecting the subatomic particle that ended the evolution of the wavelike behavior of the photon? What caused it to transform to a particle with a specific position? While the mathematics of the wave function was saying that the “photon wave” should continue to evolve, experiments showed that, instead, it adopted a specific position. Worse, it adopted a position that could not be predicted: In the same experimental setup, particles that were run through the experiment adopted different, apparently random, positions. The wave function calculates only the total distribution of particle positions.
    In fact, the mathematics was saying even more. The wave function has a mathematical property called “linearity.” This property means that when the photon superposition interacts with the photographic plate, the superposition should “infect” the photographic plate. The plate, itself, is composed of quantum particles. Mathematically, it appears that the particles in the plate should become correlated with the photon. The plate should go into a superposition like the photon, a superposition of all the positions in which the photon might land.

    Instead, the wave function collapses down to a particle, making a single dot on the plate. Rather than going into a blurry superposition, the photographic plate stays solidly in place.

    Again, notice how no consciousness is required.

    In 1932, John Von Neumann, one of the leading mathematicians of the 20th Century, wrote the first comprehensive presentation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. This became the standard textbook for quantum mechanics. In this volume, Von Neumann proposed that the wave function could collapse at any point in the causal chain from the measurement device to the human perception of the measurement. In the 1960’s, Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, proposed that it is, specifically, human consciousness that collapses the wave function. However, in later years, he distanced himself from this proposal.

    Noted physicist Henry Stapp, however, continued with the idea that consciousness collapses the wave function. He wrote:

    “From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become … parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation….”

    The cartoon image above illustrates this view of collapse of the wave function. In this illustration, the universe is a collection of interacting waves which our consciousness collapses down to real solid particles that form houses, trees, the sun, and a family picnic. This view of the role of consciousness in collapsing the wave function is sometimes espoused by people who are into spirituality. They sometimes look back at statements along this line by early quantum physicists like Eugene Wigner and Werner Heisenberg, not realizing that this is no longer mainstream physics. However, some physicists are beginning to consider the possibility that consciousness gives physicality to our universe. Physicists interested in the possibility that we live in a virtual reality may be especially interested in the role of consciousness giving flesh to the equations which govern the universe. For a discussion, see the final section of this article.

    Today, most physicists dismiss the idea that consciousness collapses the wave function. Of course, there is no theoretical understanding within physics of consciousness and the mechanics of how consciousness might collapse the wave function. Instead, today (2019), many physicists look to the mathematical theory of decoherence as the explanation or, at least part of the explanation, for the collapse of the wave function. (See next section.) Other physicists subscribe to interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Many Worlds and Bohmian Interpretations, which do not involve collapse of the wave function. This, in fact, is one of the main attractions of these two interpretations.

    While many physicists have moved away from considering consciousness as a possible cause of collapse of the wave function, a few physicists have done actual experiments. In addition to other possible causes of collapse, could conscious attention to the path of a quantum particle collapse the wave function? This possibility was investigated by physicists at Princeton University and York University in 1998. Participants were asked to observe with their mind’s eye light traveling through a Double Slit Experimental set-up. The possibility of any physical contact with the set-up was eliminated.

    Experimenters at Princeton University used subjects who were experienced with maintaining focused intention in these types of experiments. This experiment found a small but statistically significant effect of visualization on collapsing the wave function. The York University experiment, which used a random group of subjects, did not find a significant effect.

  44. 44
    jerry says:

    Oops

    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.

    What prevents ID proponents from pursuing such an approach. I’m intrigued. Can you give more details on what would be involved?

    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.

  45. 45
    Sir Giles says:

    Yes, yes, you are right – there must have been more than one designer.

    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.

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    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/

    When Charles Darwin formulated his ideas, he was candid about weaknesses and gaps in his thinking. Shubin opens the book with one vocal critic, St. George Jackson Mivart, who thought Darwin’s ideas were flawed. If evolution is a process of gradual changes via mutation and natural selection, then how are major transitions supposed to arise? It sounds like a sensible question and to this day creationists like to trot out this argument. Darwin had five words for Mivart (and I am not building up to an obscenity-laden punchline here): by a change of function. Shubin beautifully clarifies this on page 27: “innovations never come about during the great transitions they are associated with”. I am just going to step back while you read that sentence again.

    What Shubin gets at is that evolution takes shortcuts. Rather than inventing new traits from scratch, it repurposes existing ones. Examples Shubin gives are air-breathing in fish, which was repurposed to make lungs in land animals, and feathers on dinosaurs that originally evolved in a different context, but were repurposed for flight. Shubin has spent a research career working on our fishy ancestor, Tiktaalik rosaea, which was the subject of his previous book.

    Sea squirts hatch as free-swimming tadpoles, complete with nerve cord, gill slits, and a connective tissue rod, a sort of proto-backbone. Adult sea squirts lose all this when they metamorphose. Garstang proposed that the ancestor of all vertebrates resulted from the freezing of larval traits during sea squirt development. I came across this before when reviewing the rather technical Across the Bridge, where Henry Gee mentions it almost off-handedly on page 167: “Paedomorphosis produced the ancestor of vertebrates”. You would be forgiven for missing the significance of that sentence. Shubin’s talent lies in turning this observation from a “What…?” into an “Oh my god!” moment.

    Or take Félix Vicq D’Azyr’s realisation that some body parts are copies of each other. Ray Lankester’s observation that species can evolve by losing traits. (The evolution of limbs repeatedly involves the loss or fusion of bones, always in the reverse order in which they are formed, a sort of last in first out principle: last formed first lost). Stephen Jay Gould’s thought experiment of “replaying the tape of life” and the question of how repeatable evolution is. (The answer: quite.) Lynn Margulis’s idea of endosymbiosis. Or Nicole King’s work on choanoflagellates: the single-celled creatures you have never heard of that can form colonies and are the closest living relative to multicellular life forms.

    Time and again, Shubin shows how evolution can reuse, repurpose, or rejiggle already existing structures and processes. I don’t know about you, but these kinds of spine-tingling revelations were what drew me to study biology.

    Another powerhouse of innovation is DNA, and genetics can tell us much about evolution. These sections are a giddy ride where Shubin highlights one after another stupendous concept. Take the huge similarity between e.g. chimps and humans: genome sequencing revealed some 95%-98% similarity. Why are we so different then? Because DNA is not just a molecule containing gene after gene. Like a circuit board, it is a network, where some pieces of DNA function as switches that turn other genes on and off. This is the field of evolutionary development or evo-devo and offers another way for small changes to have big effects. (On a side-note, it would offer a possible mechanism for Noam Chomsky’s proposed single mutation that led to human language, see my review of Why Chimpanzees Can’t Learn Language and Only Humans Can.)

    Hox genes control the development of whole body segments and can be repurposed to make other structures, such as limbs. Most DNA does not even code for anything and Susumu Ohno surmised it results from copying processes gone wild, whether gene, chromosome or whole-DNA duplication (biologists call this last one polyploidy, it is common in plants). And then there is Barbara McClintock’s discovery of jumping genes: selfish genetic elements that multiply and willy-nilly insert themselves all over a DNA molecule. If rogue replication sounds an awful lot like cancer, well, that is because it is – evolution and cancer are closely linked. And how about this? If such a jumping gene mutates and becomes a genetic switch, they can insert switches all over a genome. Dramatic new traits that at first sight would require an unlikely number of separate mutations suddenly become a whole lot more plausible. One example Shubin provides is the evolution of pregnancy.

    I found the book easy to read and fascinating. AND it addresses many of the objections you have. Give it a try.

  47. 47
    relatd says:

    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.

  48. 48
    relatd says:

    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.

  49. 49
    relatd says:

    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.

  50. 50
    relatd says:

    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.

  51. 51
    jerry says:

    I found the book easy to read and fascinating. AND it addresses many of the objections you have. Give it a try.

    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.

    I am just going to step back while you read that sentence again

    Actually, I have brought this idea up several times to examine

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    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.)

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    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”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    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.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    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.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s inductive methodology)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    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.”,,

    “That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.”
    – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science
    https://idthefuture.com/1530/

    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.

    Newton — Rationalizing Christianity, or Not? – Rosalind W. Picard – 1998
    Excerpt: The belief that it was by divine will and not by some shadow of necessity that matter existed and possessed its properties, had a direct impact on Newton’s science. It was necessary to discover laws and properties by experimental means, and not by rational deduction. As Newton wrote in another unpublished manuscript, “The world might have been otherwise,,” (see Davis, 1991)
    https://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/Newton.php

    ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,,
    – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49).
    https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237

    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,,”

    “Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991)
    Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science,,,
    Newton’s voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes’ version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God’s will. Second, 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, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

    And since Newton also held the orthodox Christian belief that man is made in the image of God,,,

    Priest of Nature – the religious worlds of Isaac Newton – R. Iliffe (Princeton University Press, 2017)
    Excerpt page 5:
    “The analogy between the human and the divine would remain at the heart of Newtons theological metaphysics. In the essay on God, space, and time that he penned in the early 1690s, the analogy between man and God played a key role. Was it not most agreeable to reason, he asked, that Gods creatures shared his attributes as far as possible as fruit the nature of the tree, and an image the likeness of a man, and by sharing tend towards perfection? Similarly, was it not reasonable to believe that God could be discerned in the more perfect creatures as in a mirror? Such a view also enabled humans to understand the being and attributes of the divine.”
    https://www.yoono.org/download/prinat.pdf

    ,,, 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”,,

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    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”

    December 2021 – When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741600

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Verses:

    Matthew 26:39
    And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  55. 55
    relatd says:

    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.”

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    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.

  57. 57
    jerry says:

    What ‘they’ are you talking about? What kind of ‘something’ are you talking about?

    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.

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    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

    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.

    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.

  59. 59
    relatd says:

    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.

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    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.

  61. 61
    jerry says:

    Or live in ignorance

    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.

  62. 62
    relatd says:

    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.

  63. 63
    JVL says:

    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.

  64. 64
    Querius says:

    Related @49, 50

    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.

    Agreed! Incidentally, A number of materials, including diamonds, give off light when an electric current passes through them.

    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.

    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

  65. 65
    relatd says:

    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.

  66. 66
    Alan Fox says:

    Jerry (to me)

    Lenski’s LTEE experiment supports claims that niches lead no where.

    Yet it is still ongoing. Your remark is obviously flat out wrong.

    Did you expect people not to read his results.

    I hope they will. That’s why I linked to Professor Lenski’s site, where the information is readily available.

    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.

    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/

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    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 Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a

    The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0

    Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester
    Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....Experiment

    Interaction-Free Measurements
    In physics, interaction-free measurement is a type of measurement in quantum mechanics that detects the position, presence, or state of an object without an interaction occurring between it and the measuring device. Examples include the Renninger negative-result experiment, the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem [1], and certain double-cavity optical systems, such as Hardy’s paradox.,,,
    Initially proposed as thought experiments, interaction-free measurements have been experimentally demonstrated in various configurations, 6,7,8,,
    6. Kwiat, Paul; Weinfurter, Harald; Herzog, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton; Kasevich, Mark A. (1995-06-12). “Interaction-Free Measurement”. Physical Review Letters. 74 (24):
    7. White, Andrew G. (1998). “”Interaction-free” imaging”. Physical Review A. 58 (1):
    8. Tsegaye, T.; Goobar, E.; Karlsson, A.; Björk, G.; Loh, M. Y.; Lim, K. H. (1998-05-01). “Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer”. Physical Review A. 57 (5):
    – per wikipedia

    An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment, and in the double slit experiment, i.e. the Detector can be placed at one slit during the double slit experiment and yet the photon or electron still collapses in the ‘unobserved’ slit) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    The following video also clearly explains why decoherence does not explain quantum wave collapse,

    The Measurement Problem – InspiringPhilosophy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    As to Many Worlds, the Many worlds model denies the reality of wave function collapse.

    Many-worlds interpretation
    The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse.[2] ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

    Thus since wave function collapse is now experimentally shown to be a real effect, Many Worlds is now experimentally falsified,

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,

    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

  68. 68
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Let me do a resume: Lenski experiment is a dud , darwinian evolution is nonsense .

  69. 69
    Querius says:

    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

  70. 70
    relatd says:

    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.

  71. 71
    jerry says:

    Your remark is obviously flat out wrong

    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.

  72. 72
    Alan Fox says:

    No, it’s flat out correct.

    Yes, it’s flat out wrong.

    The proof is that you provide no evidence of anything of substance happening. The world would be all over it if anything really happened.

    Nonsense. Though rapid climate change is threatening extinction to many species, including ours.

    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.

    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.

  73. 73
    jerry says:

    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

    Let me translate.

    There is no evidence to support my position. So I am going to just say you are ignorant and I cannot be bothered dealing with your lack of knowledge and inferior intelligence.

    And by the way I am going to make believe Lenski’s experiment has produced incredible results even though we all know nothing significant has happened.

    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.

  74. 74
    asauber says:

    “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

  75. 75
    relatd says:

    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.

  76. 76
    JVL says:

    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.

  77. 77
    relatd says:

    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.

  78. 78
    Alan Fox says:

    But that’s the whole game… how the first living organisms got going. Did you comment that with a straight face?

    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.

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    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’.

    Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? July 2012 – Stephen M. Barr – professor of physics at the University of Delaware
    Excerpt: The upshot is this: If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.
    If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?
    http://www.bigquestionsonline......elieve-god

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems – Philip Ball – May 2018
    Excerpt: Every scientific theory (at least, I cannot think of an exception) is a formulation for explaining why things in the world are the way we perceive them to be. This assumption that a theory must recover our perceived reality is generally so obvious that it is unspoken.,,
    But the MWI refuses to grant it. Sure, it claims to explain why it looks as though “you” are here observing that the electron spin is up, not down. But actually it is not returning us to this fundamental ground truth at all. Properly conceived, it is saying that there are neither facts nor a you who observes them.
    It says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable.
    Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/

    Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017
    Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic.
    The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less.
    Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,,
    What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/

    Here is a bit deeper look at the many logical fallacies inherent in the atheist’s Many Worlds Interpretation:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=7

    January 2022 – Of supplemental note as to just how badly the atheist’s many worlds model undermines science itself,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-many-worlds-an-atheist-war-on-quantum-mechanics/#comment-745919

  80. 80
    JVL says:

    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.

  81. 81
    JVL says:

    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?

  82. 82
    relatd says:

    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.

  83. 83
    bornagain77 says:

    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.,,,”

    How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015
    Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,,
    But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,,
    Such a view appalled many physicists,,,
    Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,,
    Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,,
    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.,,,
    https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem

  84. 84
    Alan Fox says:

    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

  85. 85
    relatd says:

    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.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    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,

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    – Max Planck (1858–1947), , The Observer, London, January 25, 1931, (one of the primary founders of quantum theory who has many fundamental constants named after him. i.e. Planck length Planck time, Planck energy, Planck unit of force, and Planck temperature)

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    – Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.

    “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
    – Werner Heisenberg – As quoted in The New York Times Book Review (March 8, 1992). – “Uncertainty,” David C. Cassidy’s biography of my father, Werner Heisenberg

    The Strange Link between the Human mind and Quantum Physics – By Philip Ball – 16 February 2017
    Excerpt: The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.”
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story.....um-physics

    “We wish to measure a temperature.,,,
    But in any case, no matter how far we calculate — to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.,,, That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into the interior of the body of the actual observer is the content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism — but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be put somewhere, if the method is not to proceed vacuously, i.e., if a comparison with experiment is to be possible. Indeed experience only makes statements of this type: an observer has made a certain (subjective) observation; and never any like this: a physical quantity has a certain value.”
    – John von Neumann – 1903-1957 – The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 – 1955

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”
    — Eugene Wigner – (won a Nobel prize run 1963 for his work on the foundation of quantum mechanics. i.e. quantum symmetries) – as quoted in “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness” By Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner
    https://books.google.com/books?id=pd6rDVcQMlkC&pg=PA5&lpg

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
    – John Wheeler
    – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68 – P. C. W. Davies, Julian R. Brown – Cambridge University Press, Jul 30, 1993

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    – Anton Zeilinger – a leading experimentalist in quantum mechanics today
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    So JVL, are you going to take your own advice and trust the people who ‘built’ Quantum Mechanics?

  87. 87
    bill cole says:

    Alan

    The best I hope for is to point out that most evolution critics here have no idea of how the theory of evolution works.

    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.

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is bonus quote for you JVL

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    – Max Planck – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy,

  89. 89
    Querius says:

    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

  90. 90
    Alan Fox says:

    The origin of the populations is a much bigger problem and the idea that life had a single origin is almost certainly wrong.

    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?

  91. 91
    JVL says:

    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.

  92. 92
    JVL says:

    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?

  93. 93
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt: In the years since, many “Bell tests” have been performed, but critics have identified several conditions (known as loopholes) in which the results could be considered inconclusive. For entangled photons, there have been three major loopholes; two were closed by previous experiments. The remaining problem, known as the “detection-efficiency/fair sampling loophole,” results from the fact that, until now, the detectors employed in experiments have captured an insufficiently large fraction of the photons, and the photon sources have been insufficiently efficient. The validity of such experiments is thus dependent on the assumption that the detected photons are a statistically fair sample of all the photons. That, in turn, leaves open the possibility that, if all the photon data were known, they could be described by local realism.
    The new research, conducted at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Communication in Austria (Zeilinger), closes the fair-sampling loophole by using improved photon sources (spontaneous parametric down-conversion in a Sagnac configuration) and ultra-sensitive detectors provided by the Single Photonics and Quantum Information project in PML’s Quantum Electronics and Photonics Division. That combination, the researchers write, was “crucial for achieving a sufficiently high collection efficiency,” resulting in a high-accuracy data set – requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    Einstein vs quantum mechanics … and why he’d be a convert today – June 12, 2014
    Excerpt: In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein’s hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated!
    https://theconversation.com/einstein-vs-quantum-mechanics-and-why-hed-be-a-convert-today-27641

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Excerpt: In 1959, John Stewart Bell deduced his eponymous theorem: that no system of hidden variables can reproduce all of the consequences of quantum theory. In particular, he deduced an inequality pertinent to observations of an entangled system consisting of two separated particles. If experimental results contradicted Bell’s inequality, hidden-variable models could be ruled out. Experiments of this kind seemed difficult or impossible to carry out. But, in 1972, Alain Aspect succeeded. His results contradicted Bell’s inequality. The predictions of quantum mechanics were confirmed and the principle of local realism challenged. Ever more precise tests of Bell’s inequality and its extension by John Clauser et al. continue to be performed,14 including an experiment involving pairs of photons coming from different distant quasars. Although a few tiny loopholes may remain, all such tests to date have confirmed that quantum theory is incompatible with the existence of local hidden variables. Most physicists have accepted the failure of Einstein’s principle of local realism.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    Closed Loophole Confirms the Unreality of the Quantum World – July 25, 2018
    After researchers found a loophole in a famous experiment designed to prove that quantum objects don’t have intrinsic properties, three experimental groups quickly sewed the loophole shut. The episode closes the door on many “hidden variable” theories.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit UD

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?
    Inexplicable lab results may be telling us we’re on the cusp of a new scientific paradigm
    By Bernardo Kastrup on April 19, 2018
    Excerpt: ,, according to the current paradigm, (materialism and/or physicalism), the properties of an object should exist and have definite values even when the object is not being observed: the moon should exist and have whatever weight, shape, size and color it has even when nobody is looking at it. Moreover, a mere act of observation should not change the values of these properties. Operationally, all this is captured in the notion of “non-contextuality”: ,,,
    since Alain Aspect’s seminal experiments in 1981–82, these predictions (of Quantum Mechanics) have been repeatedly confirmed, with potential experimental loopholes closed one by one. 1998 was a particularly fruitful year, with two remarkable experiments performed in Switzerland and Austria. In 2011 and 2015, new experiments again challenged non-contextuality. Commenting on this, physicist Anton Zeilinger has been quoted as saying that “there is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure [that is, observe] about a system has [an independent] reality.” Finally, Dutch researchers successfully performed a test closing all remaining potential loopholes, which was considered by Nature the “toughest test yet.”,,,
    It turns out, however, that some predictions of QM are incompatible with non-contextuality even for a large and important class of non-local theories. Experimental results reported in 2007 and 2010 have confirmed these predictions. To reconcile these results with the current paradigm would require a profoundly counterintuitive redefinition of what we call “objectivity.” And since contemporary culture has come to associate objectivity with reality itself, the science press felt compelled to report on this by pronouncing, “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality.”
    The tension between the anomalies and the current paradigm can only be tolerated by ignoring the anomalies. This has been possible so far because the anomalies are only observed in laboratories. Yet we know that they are there, for their existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, when we believe that we see objects and events outside and independent of mind, we are wrong in at least some essential sense. A new paradigm is needed to accommodate and make sense of the anomalies; one wherein mind itself is understood to be the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-quantum-anomalies-make-us-rethink-reality/

    etc.. etc.. etc…

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  94. 94
    jerry says:

    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.

    Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA

    ABSTRACT

    The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit+) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit+ mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested with wild-type E. coli strain B and with K-12 and three K-12 derivatives: an E. coli ?rpoS::kan mutant (impaired for stationary-phase survival), an E. coli ?citT::kan mutant (deleted for the anaerobic citrate/succinate antiporter), and an E. coli ?dctA::kan mutant (deleted for the aerobic succinate transporter). E. coli underwent adaptation to aerobic citrate metabolism that was readily and repeatedly achieved using minimal medium supplemented with citrate (M9C), M9C with 0.005% glycerol, or M9C with 0.0025% glucose. Forty-six independent E. coli Cit+ mutants were isolated from all E. coli derivatives except the E. coli ?citT::kan mutant. Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations. Citrate utilization was confirmed using Simmons, Christensen, and LeMaster Richards citrate media and quantified by mass spectrometry. E. coli Cit+ mutants grew in clumps and in long incompletely divided chains, a phenotype that was reversible in rich media. Genomic DNA sequencing of four E. coli Cit+ mutants revealed the required sequence of mutational events leading to a refined Cit+ mutant. These events showed amplified citT and dctA loci followed by DNA rearrangements consistent with promoter capture events for citT. These mutations were equivalent to the amplification and promoter capture CitT-activating mutations identified in the LTEE.

    IMPORTANCE E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513–518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.

    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/

  95. 95
    JVL says:

    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.

  96. 96
    jerry says:

    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

  97. 97
    Alan Fox says:

    Broken link, Jerry.

  98. 98
    JVL says:

    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?

  99. 99
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    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.”

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, 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.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    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.”

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: 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.
    http://www.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf

    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.

    ,,, from the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    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,

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    April 18, 2021 – Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595

    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.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    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

  100. 100
    jerry says:

    Broken link, Jerry

    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.

  101. 101
  102. 102
    JVL says:

    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?

  103. 103
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, I’ll gladly let my post stand as stated in the face of your incoherent ‘grasping at straws’ rambling.

    The idiom ‘grasping at straws’ is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.

    From where does the phrase ‘grasping at straws’ come?

    It comes from a proverb in Thomas More’s “Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation” (1534) which says, “A drowning man will clutch at straws.” It is said that the “straw” in this case refers to the sort of thin reeds that grow by the side of a river.
    https://www.plansponsor.com/tuesday-trivia-phrase-grasping-straws-come/?layout=print
    Cartoon
    http://explorevenango.com/wp-c.....600-LA.jpg

  104. 104
    JVL says:

    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?

  105. 105
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL repeats his false ‘grasping at straws’ claim that modern science arose in other cultures.

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

    The Christian Origins of Science – Jack Kerwick – Apr 15, 2017
    Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,,
    Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,,
    In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.”
    He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”
    https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,,
    Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    Michael Egnor: Judeo-Christian Culture and the Rise of Modern Science – July 23, 2022
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/michael-egnor-judeo-christian-culture-and-the-rise-of-modern-science/

  106. 106
    relatd says:

    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.

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    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.

  108. 108
    bornagain77 says:

    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.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph
    https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg

    Inductive reasoning
    Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

    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.

    The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016
    Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation

    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.

    Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video
    Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

    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.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

    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.”

    Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson
    The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected.
    Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature.
    Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

  109. 109
    bornagain77 says:

    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.’.

    Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860)
    Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review
    Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
    http://www.victorianweb.org/sc.....rigin.html

    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?”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – 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. 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?-
    As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,,
    ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    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.”

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, 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.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

    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.”

    Scientific Method
    Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote:
    “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.”
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

    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.”

    Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview
    Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection.
    Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species.
    After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how 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. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.”
    – ibid

    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.”

    Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019
    Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “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.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately?
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

    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.

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom
    What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology –
    July 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    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:

    Matthew 7:18-20
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

    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.

  110. 110
    relatd says:

    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.

  111. 111
    JVL says:

    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?

  112. 112
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, whatever!

    A few quotes from the Christian founders of Modern science.

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov – (pg. 222)

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.”
    (Isaac Newton 1687, Principia)
    Sir Isaac Newton – English physicist and mathematician, who was the culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. Considered the father of modern physics.

    “When I reflect on so many profoundly marvellous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.”
    (Galileo, as cited in Caputo 2000, 85).
    Galileo Galilei – central figure of the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century

    “To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.”
    (Copernicus, as cited in Neff 1952, 191-192; and in Hubbard 1905, v) – put forth heliocentrism

    “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”
    (Kepler, as cited in Morris 1982, 11; see also Graves 1996, 51). –
    Johannes Kepler – discovered the laws of planetary motion.

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!”
    Johannes Kepler – In his book five of The Harmonies of the World (1619), stated shortly after he discovered the third law of planetary motion.

    “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”
    (Bacon) –
    Francis Bacon championed the inductive methodology behind the scientific method.

    “And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew him, I could have no perfect knowledge of any other thing. And now that I know him, I possess the means of acquiring a perfect knowledge respecting innumerable matters, as well relative to God himself and other intellectual objects as to corporeal nature.”
    (Descartes 1901, Meditation V).
    Rene Descartes – mathematician of the first order, an important scientific thinker,

    “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.”
    (Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101).
    Michael Faraday (arguably the greatest experimentalist of all time), who laid down the foundations (together with James Clerk Maxwell) of the physics of electromagnetism, the cornerstone of modern civilization.

    “Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.’
    — Michael Faraday – When asked about his speculations on life beyond death, as quoted in The Homiletic Review (April 1896), p. 442

    “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.”
    (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405)
    – James Clerk Maxwell is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions to science

    “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.”
    (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101)
    Sir William Thomson, who was later ennobled as Lord Kelvin, His contributions to science included a major role in the development of the second law of thermodynamics; the absolute temperature scale (measured in kelvins); the dynamical theory of heat; the mathematical analysis of electricity and magnetism,

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.”
    – Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    “When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature, I find myself often times reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!’ ”
    (Boyle, as cited in Woodall 1997, 32)
    Robert Boyle is largely regarded today as the first modern chemist,

    “Wishing them also a most happy success in their laudable attempts to discover the true nature of the works of God, and praying, that they and all other searchers into physical truths may cordially refer their attainments to the glory of the Author of Nature, and the benefit of mankind.”
    — Robert Boyle is largely regarded as the first modern chemist, speaking of the Royal Society in his will

    “The examination of the bodies of animals has always been my delight, and I have thought that we might thence not only obtain an insight into the lighter mysteries of nature, but there perceive a kind of image or reflection of the omnipotent Creator Himself.”
    (Harvey, as cited in Keynes 1966, 330)
    William Harvey made influential contributions in anatomy and physiology.

    “There is for a free man no occupation more worth and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God.”
    (Ray, as cited in Graves 1996, 66; see also Yahya 2002)
    John Ray published important works on botany, zoology, and natural theology.

    “Science brings men nearer to God.,,
    Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,,”
    (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75)
    Louis Pasteur one of the most important founders of medical microbiology. Pasteur’s contributions to science, technology, and medicine are nearly without precedent

    many more quotes from the Christian founders of modern science can be found on the following site
    http://www.academia.edu/273960.....OD_Journal

  113. 113
    kairosfocus says:

    Caspian:

    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?

    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

  114. 114
    Alan Fox says:

    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.

    There’s absolutely no connection between the physical templating of DNA replication and human language.

  115. 115
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    all those Chinese people who were essentially doing science

    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:

    [JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:]

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    Do I need to say, stolen valour and stolen achievements?

    KF

    PS, Peterson:

    Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.

    There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.

    [–> Clue: why do we still talk about “Laws” of nature? Doesn’t such historically rooted language not suggest: a law-giver? (And indeed, that is precisely what Newton discussed at length in his General Scholium to his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.) Of course, that will not move the deeply indoctrinated and polarised, but it is a clear marker to those who are willing to think more open-mindedly.]

    Recent scholarship in the history of science reveals that this commitment to rational, empirical investigation of God’s creation is not simply a product of the “scientific revolution” of the 16th and 17th centuries, but has profound roots going back at least to the High Middle Ages . . . .

    Albertus Magnus — prodigious scholar, naturalist, teacher of Thomas Aquinas, and member of the Dominican order — affirmed in his De Mineralibus that the purpose of science is “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.” Another 13th-century figure, Robert Grosseteste, who was chancellor of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln, has been identified as “the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment,” according to Woods.

    WHEN THE DISCOVERIES of science exploded in number and importance in the 1500s and 1600s, the connection with Christian belief was again profound. Many of the trailblazing scientists of that period when science came into full bloom were devout Christian believers, and declared that their work was inspired by a desire to explore God’s creation and discover its glories. Perhaps the greatest scientist in history, Sir Isaac Newton, was a fervent Christian who wrote over a million words on theological subjects. Other giants of science and mathematics were similarly devout: Boyle, Descartes, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal. To avoid relying on what might be isolated examples, Stark analyzed the religious views of the 52 leading scientists from the time of Copernicus until the end of the 17th century. Using a methodology that probably downplayed religious belief, he found that 32 were “devout”; 18 were at least “conventional” in their religious belief; and only two were “skeptics.” More than a quarter were themselves ecclesiastics: “priests, ministers, monks, canons, and the like.”

    Down through the 19th century, many of the leading figures in science were thoroughgoing Christians. A partial list includes Babbage, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Maxwell, Mendel, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). A survey of the most eminent British scientists near the end of the 19th century found that nearly all were members of the established church or affiliated with some other church.

    In short, scientists who were committed Christians include men often considered to be fathers of the fields of astronomy, atomic theory, calculus, chemistry, computers, electricity, genetics, geology, mathematics, and physics. In the late 1990s, a survey found that about 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God and an afterlife — a percentage that is basically unchanged since the early 20th century. A listing of eminent 20th-century scientists who were religious believers would be far too voluminous to include here — so let’s not bring coals to Newcastle, but simply note that the list would be large indeed, including Nobel Prize winners.

    Far from being inimical to science, then, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced it. Scientists who (in Boyle’s words) viewed nature as “the immutable workmanship of the omniscient Architect” were the pathfinders who originated the scientific enterprise. The assertion that intelligent design is automatically “not science” because it may support the concept of a creator is a statement of materialist philosophy, not of any intrinsic requirement of science itself.

    The redefinition of science in materialist terms — never wholly successful, but probably now the predominant view — required the confluence of several intellectual currents. The attack on religious belief in general, and Christianity in particular, has been underway for more than two centuries . . . . IT WAS THE AWE-INSPIRING SUCCESS of science itself, nurtured for centuries in a Christian belief system, that caused many to turn to it as the comprehensive source of explanation. With the mighty technology spawned by science in his hands, man could exalt himself, it seemed, and dispense with God. Although Darwin was by no means the sole cause of the apotheosis of materialist science, his theories gave it crucial support. It is perhaps not altogether a coincidence that the year 1882, in which Darwin died, found Nietzsche proclaiming that “God is dead…and we have killed him.”

    The capture of science (in considerable measure) by materialist philosophy was aided by the hasty retreat of many theists. There are those who duck any conflict by declaring that science and religion occupy non-overlapping domains or, to use a current catchphrase, separate “magisteria.” One hears this dichotomy expressed in apothegms such as, “Science asks how; religion asks why.” In this view, science is the domain of hard facts and objective truth. Religion is the realm of subjective belief and faith. Science is publicly verifiable, and is the only kind of truth that can be allowed in the public square. Religion is private, unverifiable, and cannot be permitted to intrude into public affairs, including education. The two magisteria do not conflict, because they never come into contact with each other. To achieve this peace, all the theists have to do is interpret away many of the central beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    This retreat makes some theists happy, because they can avoid a fight that they feel ill-equipped to win, and can retire to a cozy warren of warm, fuzzy irrelevancy. It also makes materialists happy, because the field has been ceded to them. As ID advocate Phillip Johnson remarks acerbically:

    Politically astute scientific naturalists feel no hostility toward those religious leaders who implicitly accept the key naturalistic doctrine that supernatural powers do not actually affect the course of nature. In fact, many scientific leaders disapprove of aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins, who seem to be asking for trouble by picking fights with religious people who only want to surrender with dignity.

    But the ID theorists do not go gentle into that good night. That’s what’s different about intelligent design. ID says that the best evidence we have shows that life is the product of a real intelligent agent, actually working in space and time, and that the designer’s hand can be detected, scientifically and mathematically, by what we know about the kinds of things that are produced only by intelligence. It is making scientific claims about the real world. Because it relies on objective fact and scientific reasoning, ID seeks admission to the public square. Rather than retreating to the gaseous realm of the subjective, it challenges the materialist conception of science on its own turf. It thus threatens materialism generally, with all that that entails for morality, law, culture — and even for what it means to be human.

    THOSE WHO NOW OCCUPY the public square will fight to keep possession of it. The advocates of Darwinian materialism believe that they are in possession of The Truth, and are perfectly willing to invoke the power of the state to suppress competing views [–> which should be a big warning-sign that something has gone very wrong] . . . [“What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?” By Dan Peterson, American Spectator, Published 12/22/2005; also cf his earlier popular level summary on ID here. (HT: Wayback Machine.)]

  116. 116
    kairosfocus says:

    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:

    “The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

    See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/

    KF

  117. 117
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    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.

  118. 118
    kairosfocus says:

    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

  119. 119
    Alan Fox says:

    DNA is much more complex than human language because is a living language.

    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?

  120. 120
    kairosfocus says:

    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

Leave a Reply