Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Who is the Designer of ID?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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?

Comments
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. KFkairosfocus
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
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?Alan Fox
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
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.Lieutenant Commander Data
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
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/ KFkairosfocus
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
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.)]
kairosfocus
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
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.Alan Fox
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 22, 2022
September
09
Sep
22
22
2022
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
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/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal
bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, in his desperation of ‘grasping at straws’, mentioned the Ancient Greeks, particularly JVL asked “Aristotle was not a scientist?” This is an interesting false claim for JVL to make since the inductive methodology of the scientific method itself, via Francis Bacon, was the result of Bacon directly repudiating the deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, particularly of Aristotle. Really? So the ancient Greeks did nothing to forward the advance of knowledge? Isn't that part of the definition of science? I tell you what; why don't you spell out, clearly, why the ancient Greeks technique, which you've hinted at, was not able to come to similar conclusions as we do today. Give us a particular example of how their approach limited their results. Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” Interesting that you then should make a top-down argument for the rationality of the universe. Curious isn't it? In fact, let's make sure we are NOT making a top-down argument. Let's make sure that we are favouring something more .. . . bottom up. I'm good with that. Are you? That means letting go of the great designer in the sky who dictates everything. That's okay with you? ID is a clear top-down argument. Are you good with that?JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
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.relatd
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
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/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.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.bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Unsurprisingly, JVL continues desperately 'grasping at straws'. http://explorevenango.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Straws-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/
bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
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.JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
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.relatd
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
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/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/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/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.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/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-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/
bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: I gladly let my post stand as stated in the face of your incoherent ‘grabbing at straws’ rambling. I'm sure you would rather than addressing the clear fact that many non-Christian cultures achieved high levels of technical/scientific achievements. That's not how real scientists behave when confronted with data that runs counter to their pet 'theory'. Even if they want to stick to their guns they try and find more evidence in support of their view instead of just putting their fingers in their ears and walking away. But, you're not a scientist are you? Why are we taking your views seriously at all?JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
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-content/uploads/2017/01/Straws-600-LA.jpg
bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: you do realize that to ‘talk science’ is to necessarily presuppose Theism to be true do you not? No, I do not believe that to be the case. There is no reason that a non-theistic being could not observe patterns and some cause-and-effect situations in their experience and start to want to see what kind of events always precede other events without supposing that there was some . . . thing responsible for that happening. But I know you love to trot out that wheeze all the time. That doesn't make it true however. AND, if there is no deity where does that leave the foundations of science? directly contrary to your belief that science is somehow independent of Judeo-Christian presuppositions, all of science proceeds, and is still dependent, upon presuppositions that were born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is where your bigotry really shines through. You don't think theology is necessary for science to work, you think CHRISTIAN theology is necessary. So all those Chinese people who were essentially doing science before they knew anything about Christ were mistaken. So all those Greeks and Romans and Egyptians who were building pyramids and aqueducts and the Pantheon and temples and roads were not being scientific. So all the New World natives who built immense pyramids and structures to an incredible precision . . . those heathens were clearly not doing science. You should be ashamed of your bias but I know you're not. I'm not talking about your faith, I have no problem with that. It's the way you denigrate and bad-mouth everyone who doesn't agree with you that turns my stomach. I wonder what Jesus would think of your Holier-than-thou attitude?JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
AF, I had to cut and paste the link to get it to work. https://www.lucianne.com/images/daily_photos/2022/09/20/009f3147-74c5-4bb6-acd4-d30c6b6fdc00.jpegbornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
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.jerry
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
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/R.Koons/Koons-science.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-765639bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Jerry: From someone who has never presented any actual science that ties things together. Just yesterday was asked to do so and then punted on first down. I guess mentioning a book, easy to find, not expensive, that I think answers at least some of your concerns doesn't count. What do I have to do? Violate copyright and reproduce the whole thing here before you'll consider the points it makes? Since you clearly aren't actually interested in a) having a conversation or b) examining new bits of information that you were unaware of . . . why should I or anyone bother to attempt to respond to your queries?JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Broken link, Jerry.Alan Fox
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
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.jpegjerry
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
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.JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
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/jerry
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
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-bell-test-loophole-photons.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-quantum-theory-weirdness.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.
bornagain77
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Relatd: Prior to posting on this site I read a lot from people offering me citations from here and there that they said showed evolution was factual. It was not persuasive then and it’s not persuasive now. So are you saying that when you ask a question or for some new data or results I should bother trying to find them for you? You have fallen into the “all opinions are equal” trap. Actually, I do not believe that. But I'm trying to be polite in order to have a civilised conversation. If you're interested. In the case of Evolution versus ID, I choose ID since it makes far more sense. Far more. Even after many attempts to ‘educate’ me. You are clearly an intelligent person and have taken the time to consider quite a lot of information, data and research and have come to a considered conclusion. I have no problem with that. But it does mean that when you ask if there's anything new or recent that might change your mind and then indicate you have no intention of considering anything that is presented to you makes me wonder a) why you bother to ask and b) why any of us should bother to reply? Feel free to stop replying to me. I rather like pointing out that your information may not be up-to-date. It always amuses me when ID proponents bring up Darwin over and over and over again. It's like arguing about modern physics via Newton. Evolutionary theory has come a long ways in the last 150 years and continues to change with new data and new evidence. As it should!! How can you be sure your reservations about the field have not been addressed if you don't keep up?JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
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.JVL
September 21, 2022
September
09
Sep
21
21
2022
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply