A Common Code: Surely That Means They’re All Related—Doesn’t It?

_{Cornelius Hunter
March 8, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists don’t think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists don’t matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesn’t come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences. Read more

Comments

Alan Fox:
There’s that same old default argument again.
Again Alan proves he does NOT understand teh word "default".
You fail to accept evolutionary explanations...
And more equivocation.
and, instead, give some non-explanation a free pass.
In what way does the design inference get a "free pass"? Please explain or admit that you are just making stuff up because you are an ignorant oaf.Joe_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

EA, "I sense a fair amount of frustration that people aren’t buying into your Big-ID terminology. And in your mind you seem to have drawn conclusions about our evil motives, bordering on conspiracy and bad faith. The reality is that your Big-ID terminology is not likely to ever gain much traction. Not because we’re all engaged in a tribal plot to undermine your ingenious “revelation.” But because the definition isn’t accurate or useful." Spot on. People are wearying of his constant ramblings about 'Big-ID' and 'little-id' etc. The revelation I believe is purely of his own as i don't see anything in what he has brought out of it that isn't already understood. What's the big deal? I mean look at neo-Darwinism. We could capitalize it to mean certain aspects of darwinism/evolution/atheism but what would it achieve as we are all aware of those aspects, and can easily identify when they are being used in our conversations. Neo-darwinism only allows for a natural explanation, but we all know that certain faculties will use this to promote atheism, but we don't quible about it. We accept the different approaches used in their litterature, the conclusions they draw, and what else may be implied by it, as that is what 'Science' is all about. It's time for Gregory to pull up his socks and toughen up a little :)PeterJ_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Gregory @50:
Exactly, Eric Anderson. You try to REDUCE ‘ID’ to being *only* about ‘science.’ That’s what you and your IDist tribe do best. * * * That’s right, Eric. Elevate and prioritise the natural science above the theology and philosophy. That’s what you and your IDist tribe do best.
You know, you might have better luck if, instead of making up your own definitions, you stick with the definitions that the major ID proponents have offered. ID is about design detection, period. Now, are there implications that flow from a positive detection? Sure. Are there interesting second-order questions that can be asked? Absolutely. Are some ID proponents willing and interested in discussing such second-order questions. Of course. But to claim that ID is those second order questions is to conflate two very different things. Furthermore, your Big-ID definition is so broad and conflated that it is useless in most discussions, because every time you use it we'll just have to insist that you clarify whether you are talking about the science or the theology or the philosophy or the worldview before we can have any kind of rational discussion. It is really quite simple. If you think your definition of ID is so much better (meaning, your conflated version that brings in all kinds of things) than the simple straight-forward scientific question that ID asks, there is a very easy way to deal with it: Every time one of us talks about ID you can just pretend that you hear "science portion of Big-ID." That will solve all the confusion in your mind and you'll be able to have a rational conversation. And if you want to talk about second order questions, implications, demographic surveys, worldviews, or other things, just say so and people will understand what you mean, but don't get all obsessive about some made-up "Big-ID" definition that you and a perhaps a couple of other people are trying to foist on everyone else. I sense a fair amount of frustration that people aren't buying into your Big-ID terminology. And in your mind you seem to have drawn conclusions about our evil motives, bordering on conspiracy and bad faith. The reality is that your Big-ID terminology is not likely to ever gain much traction. Not because we're all engaged in a tribal plot to undermine your ingenious "revelation." But because the definition isn't accurate or useful.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, Are Humans merely Turing Machines?
Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.” Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.) “My claim’s neat and clean. I’m a Turing Machine!” … ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it.
Alan Turing extended Godel’s incompleteness to material computers, as is illustrated in this following video:
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
And it is now found that,,,
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html
Yet supercomputers with many switches have a huge problem dissipating heat,,,
Supercomputer architecture Excerpt: Throughout the decades, the management of heat density has remained a key issue for most centralized supercomputers.[4][5][6] The large amount of heat generated by a system may also have other effects, such as reducing the lifetime of other system components.[7] There have been diverse approaches to heat management, from pumping Fluorinert through the system, to a hybrid liquid-air cooling system or air cooling with normal air conditioning temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer_architecture
But the brain, though having as many switches as all the computers on earth, does not have such a problem dissipating heat,,,
Appraising the brain’s energy budget: Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as “mental work”, it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438861/pdf/jcinvest00624-0127.pdf Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? – By Ferris Jabr – July 2012 Excerpt: So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thinking-hard-calories
Moreover, the heat generated by computers is primarily caused by the erasure of information from the computer,,,
Landauer’s principle Of Note: “any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase ,,, Specifically, each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an (specific) amount (at least kT ln 2) of heat.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
Thus the brain is either operating on reversible computation principles no computer can come close to emulating (Charles Bennett), or, as is much more likely, the brain is not erasing information from its memory as material computers are required to do, because our memories are stored on a ‘spiritual’ level rather than on a material level,,,
A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
To support this view that ‘memory/information’ is not stored in the brain but on a higher 'spiritual' level, one of the most common features of extremely deep near death experiences is the ‘life review’ where every minute detail of a person’s life is reviewed:
Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
Thus Mr. Fox, I hold that humans are not Turing Machines!bornagain77_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox your position is, for lack of a better word, insane. The reason it is insane is that you deny any causal power to your 'mind' in order to stick to the neo-Darwinian party line. i.e. Mr. Fox you have literally 'lost your mind' in your blind allegiance to atheistic explanations! For you see Mr. Fox, your very own post that you just wrote greatly exceeds, in functional information content, what can be reasonably expected to be generated by the entire material processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe.
Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html
To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for 'structured, functional information':
Dr. Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur. 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. How many bits would that be: Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity) Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
This short sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity - Winston Ewert - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU Here are the slides of preceding video with the calculation of the information content of the preceding sentence on page 14 http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0037/present_info.pdf
Just how strict the limit to Darwinian processes is illustrated here:
"Monkeys Typing Shakespeare" Simulation Illustrates Combinatorial Inflation Problem - October 2011 Excerpt: In other words, Darwinian evolution isn't going to be able to produce fundamentally new protein folds. In fact, it probably wouldn't even be able to produce a single 9-character string of nucleotides in DNA, if that string would not be retained by selection until all 9 nucleotides were in place. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/monkeys_typing_shakespeare_sim051561.html
John Lennox, in his concise, gentlemanly, way, briefly and clearly illustrates the absurdity of the materialistic/atheistic position here:
Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? - (Semiotic Information) - John Lennox - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw
Thus it all comes down to this Mr. Fox. You must hold that it is the purely material processes of your brain that are generating the functional information that you are writing in your posts, even though what you are writing in every post greatly exceeds what is reasonably possible for purely material processes, but I rightly hold that is impossible for you to account for the functional information that you yourself are writing in your posts without reference to your own mind (i.e YOU!)! Care to actually try to explain what you wrote to purely materialistic processes instead of just ignoring it as you did the last time I asked you to give a materialistic explanation for what you wrote? Supplemental notes as to 'mind'
Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010 Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf "In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether." “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Sir John Eccles - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963 Materialism of the Gaps - Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) - January 29, 2009 Excerpt: "The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence." Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole
In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,bornagain77_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

"we can certainly break it down and talk about the aspects separately, such as the science of intelligent design." Exactly, Eric Anderson. You try to REDUCE 'ID' to being *only* about 'science.' That's what you and your IDist tribe do best. "second-order questions that must not be conflated with the [first-order] science part." ... "I am primarily interested in discussing the science aspect." - Eric Anderson That's right, Eric. Elevate and prioritise the natural science above the theology and philosophy. That's what you and your IDist tribe do best.Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Gregory @43:
Big-ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, first and foremost.
Well, that's very nice that you have a definition of ID that captures a hugely broad spectrum of issues. Neither I nor anyone else is obliged to adopt or adhere to your definition of Big-ID. Furthermore, all the harping on about definitions is unnecessary. If Big-ID encompasses all those broad topics you attribute to it, we can certainly break it down and talk about the aspects separately, such as the science of intelligent design. We can separately talk about the philosophical implications of design detection. We could even discuss the theology/worldview positions of specific ID proponents if people are interested in that sort of thing. And the latter two are logically separate from the science aspect. No prominent ID proponent I know of has ever suggested that there aren't implications flowing from design detection in life. There are implications and they are interesting in their own right. But they are second-order questions that must not be conflated with the science part. I am primarily interested in discussing the science aspect. So unless otherwise made clear, when I am talking on this site about semiotics, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, OOL theories and the like, you can just make a personal note to yourself that I am talking about the "science" part of your "Big-ID." That's not so hard now, is it? And I am going to call it intelligent design or ID for short. And if I am lazy when typing I might call it Intelligent design, or Id or id. And I have no intention of adopting any or adhering to any definitions or capitalization requirements you try to impose on everyone.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Glad you agree Phil. Whatever you call your ID "explanation", it just gets a free pass. :)Alan Fox_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Mr Fox you state:
You fail to accept evolutionary explanations and, instead, give some non-explanation a free pass.
slight correction
You fail to accept 'stuff just happens' explanations and, instead, give some 'inference to the best' explanation a free pass.
There you go Mr. Fox, all better! :)bornagain77_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Failing a solid set of answers, these things are simply not sufficiently grounded that it is reasonable to view them as practically certain fact.
There's that same old default argument again. You fail to accept evolutionary explanations and, instead, give some non-explanation a free pass.Alan Fox_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Gregory, "What do you not understand about this ‘revelation," Revelation? Gregory you really are talking soft, such rubbish, and to be honest I simply can't figure out for the life of me why anyone bothers to engage you in this. The whole point you find so compelling is complete pants really. Sterusjon, "I am really trying to clarify the context of your posts here. Rarely, do I get done reading one of them without thinking, “What is he trying to say?” A better understanding of where you are coming from might help me out." I tried to do the same a while back but very quickly came to the conclusion that it is only Gregory who sees this as a big deal. An excellent word of advice to you Sterusjon - don't, it's a complete waste of time. Gregory, you have been an endless source of entertainment to most on here but for goodness sake go back to your blog and argue your points on there with whoever might think it worth discussing. Look, I know that very few, if any, bother with your blog, but you could always pretend. Sheesh, enough guys, enough!PeterJ_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Folks, Looks like I need to post the following again: ______________ >> Re Gregory at a recent comment in the CS Lewis thread in response to a discussion of the exchange between C S Lewis and the new, a priori materialist, blind watchmaker thesis, religion is child abuse circle of new atheists:
anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature
Notice, the loading [as I highlight], that the design inference in the hands of those who argue that on empirical evidence we may infer inductively from tested reliable signs that certain objects are designed, is here held to be an integral part of the thin edge of a wedge for a hidden religious agenda; inviting the onward agenda of accusations on theocracy, war against science, etc that are ever so familiar. This -- by now, willfully -- misrepresents the actual point made since the early 1980's (and in part made by people who have no connexion to the Christian faith such as Sir Fred Hoyle) that there are things in the world that -- on inductive explanation and investigation of a type commonly used in historical sciences such as forensics or reconstructions of the past of land forms etc -- point to design as best causal explanation, per the known alternatives, chance, necessity, art. Once that investigation is carried out objectively -- as has been done -- it stands on its own merits, and snide motive mongering is then tendentious and willful well poisoning, if it is persisted in in the teeth of cogent correction. As, sadly, we are evidently seeing. That is a good slice of why I hold Gregory's game with upper/lower case ID to be wholly tendentious and useless or worse than useless. Not only does it not fit what I have been doing, and what many others have been doing, it is a feed-point for all sorts of demonstrably false but damaging propagandistic talking points of the type I just spent a fair bit of time exposing in the case of Wikipedia. Frankly, for all I know, Gregory is yet another sock puppet from the usual suspect sites. Similar to the now common tactic of I am an X but this is what I say, and then spewing forth the usual sort of talking points designed to poison atmosphere and twist issues into strawmen. Even if he is not, he is at minimum indulging enabling behaviour and has no good reason to do this, when the real issue is very simple: is or is not it the case that there are empirically tested, reliable signs of design in our world? If not, simply produce a solid counter-example. That would suffice to finish any design theory movement. That this is not being done, but instead we find every sort of manipulative rhetorical tactic being used, tells me that the truth is that the objectors have no real answer to the provide an example challenge. That is, in fact, it is so on the merits that there are abundant signs that are well tested and point to design as best explanation of any number of objects in our world. Where some of these are the living cell, major body plans and the fine tuned cosmos that accommodates life. Sure, those empirically grounded warrants then may help shift the balance of weight on various worldviews, but that is beyond science. Not that that means such are unimportant! >> _______________ KFkairosfocus_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

"We have no idea what the heck you are talking about and what your point really is." - Eric Anderson Sometimes, Eric, I'm not sure which is more intelligent, you or my shoes! ;) I've spoken clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly for several years. What is it that you don't understand? Please let me know if you have a comprehension problem because my 18 yr-old students understand this quite quickly. Big-ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, first and foremost. Big-ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, first and foremost. Big-ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, first and foremost. What do you not understand about this 'revelation,' Eric Anderson? Will you not openly admit this is a triadic conversation here at UD? One can only guess that you are, in your words, "afraid to admit the truth" if you are not willing to answer directly.Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Gregory @41:
Do you not wonder, sterusjon, why IDists here are not willing to cross this boundary and admit it?
Well, you could be right that we all recognize your point and are just afraid to admit the truth. Two other plausible explanations come immediately to mind: - We recognize your point and disagree with it. - We have no idea what the heck you are talking about and what your point really is.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Glad to perplex you, sterusjon. ;) My farewell to UD responds to your question (and others) in the other thread. "does 'I support' mean you are in one of the 'Abrahamic faiths'?" Yes, I'd like to hope so. Do you notice though how often IDists conveniently sling me into the camp of 'materialists' or 'Darwinists'? The ID vs. id distinction should be clear by now to those who are paying attention. It is significant and monumental. When you say 'purported scientific grounds' you are right on target. The obvious and still unregretted flip-flopping at UD is not between 'empirical observations' and 'philosophical perspectives,' but rather between outdated 'creationist' apologetics and evidence, between science and theology. The solution I have offered already countless times is to admit that Big-ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, first and foremost. Do you not wonder, sterusjon, why IDists here are not willing to cross this boundary and admit it? It is sure that if S. Meyer or W. Dembski would take the lead, the song would change among the choir here at UD and perhaps they finally would sing the triadic discourse that I and others have long been promoting. Your analogy of 'changing gears' is o.k. until one speaks about a 10-speed bike instead of a 1-speed paddle-boat. No 'gear change' between apologetics and natural scientific approaches is suitable or necessary when one is simply trying to understand/describe reality in a scholarly way. The DI's (2010) eventual collapse of promoting ID theory in humanities and social sciences and transfer to C.S. Lewis apologetics indicates this distinction clearly. Meyer's suggestion of ID-theodicy is another telltale sign. Am I perplexing you less now, sterusjon?Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

AF: Your attempt to rule ex cathedra by mere declaration without warrant fails. You need to instead address substantial issues on the merits. As in, the empirically observed warrant for blind watchmaker thesis origin of life is ________________, and it was awarded a Nobel Prize in _____________, with _____________ as awardees. Similarly,the compelling observational evidence for blind watchmaker thesis body plan origin level macroevolution is ____________, and it has been awarded a Nobel Prize in _____________, with _____________ as awardees. (For surely such fundamental breakthroughs would be of Nobel Prize standard.) Moreover, the evidence that FSCO/I can be and is observed as produced by forces of blind chanvce and mechanical necessity, through Darwinian mechanisms or otherwise is __________. Failing a solid set of answers, these things are simply not sufficiently grounded that it is reasonable to view them as practically certain fact. KFkairosfocus_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Gregory, You perplex me. You are here again, fixated on ID vs. id. From that I take it to mean you find the recognition of design in the cosmos on purported scientific grounds by someone who also holds to a theistic worldview is in some way hypocritical. You make accusations of flip-flopping when we intelligent design supporters switch back and forth between the two aspects (emperical observations and our philosophical perspectives to make sense of the data) of the discussion. (I prefer to think of it as changing gears.) I just returned from your blog. I was trying to see if I could make any more sense of your views. There, at the end of an id vs. ID posting I took particular note of this, from my perspective, obscurantic statement:
…I support the orthodox position on Creation among the Abrahamic faiths (one can call it small-id if one must only when speaking with IDists),…
I have, on numerous occasions, taken notice of your references to the “Abrahamic faiths.” This statement does not really serve to clarify things for me. Would you please deliniate for me what it is you see as the “orthodox position on Creation?” And, does “I support” mean you are in one of the “Abrahamic faiths” or rather just understanding of what you see as the “orthodox view of Creation” within someone else’s faith? How can anyone hold to any "faith" based "position on Creation" and still pass your muster as to "small id?" I am really trying to clarify the context of your posts here. Rarely, do I get done reading one of them without thinking, "What is he trying to say?" A better understanding of where you are coming from might help me out. Stephensterusjon_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Eric, I can't explain it. It's communicative novices or morons who flip-flop between them. This obviously includes StepehenB and KF, who were/are responsible for the flip-flopping in the 'official' definition of 'ID' at UD. Maybe, just maybe, someone at UD will own up and explain the intentional difference? But probably not.Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Gregory @27: Looks like the capitalization police are back. Just for our edification, please explain the difference between: Intelligent design intelligent Design InTelligent DeSign intelliGent desigN ----- Thanks for keeping us laughing, though. :)Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
What we don’t get, despite kairosfocus’ protestations, is any inkling of a scientific alternative, to the extent we begin to suspect the agenda is political rather than scientific.
But it is obvious that you don't know what science is. Darwinism definitely doesn't fit the definition. So what do you have?Joe_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
IDists say: “Darwinists are wrong.”
*assumes the rôle of pet Darwinist* And we get that, folks. We really do! What we don't get, despite kairosfocus' protestations, is any inkling of a scientific alternative, to the extent we begin to suspect the agenda is political rather than scientific.Alan Fox_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Alan, if that is your inference then you are much more dense thatn I thought. The NCSE is all about politics. They don't know Jack about science and even less about ID.Joe_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Are they really just a front for left wing wackos?
Thank-you mung for confirming that the real agenda here at Uncommon Descent is political.Alan Fox_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Gregory, stuff it. It has already been demonstrated that you don't know Jack about conducting an investigation. We reject you for being a bad/ poor investigator.Joe_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

As you can see, point to facts and IDists run away from them constantly. In #14, BA77 chose to use the terms for communicative purposes: ‘Intelligent Design,’ ‘Intelligent design’ and ‘intelligent design’ all in just 2 paragraphs. When confronted on WHY the flip-flopping, no answer was given. Typical IDist evasion. If he needs me to ask the direct question now: WHY the flip-flopping BA77? Luckily I don't seek validation from BA77 or any IDist about what science is, most IDists being philosophical primitives according to under-developed American PoS. Someone says: "The sky is blue!" IDists say: "Darwinists are wrong." Someone says: "Water is made up of H2O." IDists say: "Darwinists are wrong." Someone says: "I love my husband and children." IDists say: "Darwinists are wrong." Really? Wow - never heard that before! It is really a sad demonstration of fetish and icon-worship by Protestant evangelical IDists in America who claim Big-ID is a natural-science-only theory. "Darwinists/Naturalists denying that we even have a soul" Phil, if you had read some of my works, you'd likely realise many things to agree with and that perhaps you could find a way to assist me, aside from your fetish with Big-ID and IDMism. I reject IDism as bad science and bad theology, along with many Abrahamic religious scientists.Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
Call the crime labs, Cornelius Hunter has just disproven DNA fingerprinting!
No. However DNA fingerprinting is not the same for showing two people are related as for showing two diffeent species are related. IOW the same DNA sequence that says I am related to my father would not say we are related to chimps.
Call the logicians, apparently it is wrong to say that the process of copying produces similar copies!
Umm your position requires much more than making similar copies. Making similar copies means baraminology is true, duh.
Call even the creationists, who assume that species and “kinds” have common ancestry, based almost entirely on similarity!
YOU said it, Nick- like reproduces like. That said similarity is evidence for a common design. But you, being ignorant of design processes, just cannot grasp that fact.Joe_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
It’s your choice guys, but continually harping on about perceived inadequacies in evolutionary theory doesn’t advance ID.
What "evolutionary theory"? You have failed to reference it.
Get a hypothesis and you might start getting some respect!
YOUR position doesn;t have any, Alan. However ID does. Again your willful ignorance is not a refutation.Joe_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Gregory, considering that you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a very poor philosopher who has an infatuation for puffing himself up at the expense of others instead of earning the respect of others through concise and precise argumentation, exactly why should I consider your, IMO, bizarre ramblings about science to be anything more than bizarre ramblings? Unfortunately for you, I do not have nearly as much respect for your opinion in these matters of science as you have. Perhaps someday this may change, but as of right now, you have done precious little on these pages to show that I should place any confidence in any of your opinions about science especially in regards to ID vs. Darwinism. Moreover, your comparison of neo-Darwinism to winning a Nobel prize in macro-economics reminded me of this commercial,,
Ally Bank | "Predictions" Commercial - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu6MwbYsoxI
i.e.
"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -- Ernest Rutherford
Actually, I think it is very fitting that you should the use the 'science' of money in comparison to the 'science' of neo-Darwinism because, besides both being notoriously lacking in rigorous predictive power, money is a very useful concept for illustrating a fatal flaw in Darwinian thinking in that the materialistic philosophy, which under-girds neo-Darwinism, has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. How much is human life really worth in the Darwinian scheme of things?:
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
Indeed it has been argued forcefully that the undermining of the Judeo-Christian 'sanctity of life' wrought by the acceptance of the pseudo-science of Darwinism (and atheism in general), has led to the greatest atrocities in human history in Nazi Germany as well as in Marxist regimes. If Darwinists want to insist that all these murderous consequences, and ethical implications, of Darwinism are just a mistake of the past will someone please inform Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, of that development:
Australia Awards Infanticide Backer Peter Singer Its Highest Honor – 2012 Excerpt: Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots: - Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.” - Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.” - Singer has defended bestiality. - Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. - Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.” – Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering. – Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/12/australia-awards-infanticide-backer-peter-singer-its-highest-honor/
It is simply impossible to ground true worth for a human soul within naturalism, whereas Theism, particularly Christianity, has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him in that 'While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.' (Romans 5:8):
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Indeed Darwinism denies we even have a soul, eternal life, or that that there is any real purpose to life, even though purpose permeates our lives and that there is far more evidence for the existence of souls than there is for neo-Darwinism
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
As well Gregory, Darwinists/Naturalists denying that we even have a soul (or even a mind), and your apt comparison of the 'science' of Darwinism to the 'science' of money also reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?
Yes indeed, what is worth more than your eternal soul Gregory? ,,, and how do you derive monetary value for it?
MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
bornagain77_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Congrats, BA77, you're the flip-flopper of the day: In #14 you chose to use the terms for communicative purposes: 'Intelligent Design,' 'Intelligent design' and 'intelligent design' all in just 2 paragraphs. That is an example of 'evidence' you've personally left behind. "I have actual empirical evidence that Intelligent Design can produce the effect in question (functional complexity)" - BA77 There is no ID theory of 'artefacts' (i.e. human-made things). It simply doesn't exist. What you have is ideologial confidence, BA77, based on analogical reasoning between human-made things and supposedly 'designed/Designed' natural objects. But neither you nor KF, nor Dembski-Behe-Meyer has any 'empirical evidence' of FSCO/I that has ever been calculated for human-made things. And it shouldn't be expected as forthcoming anytime soon or ever. You're probably a decent guy and we could get along fine in a conversation about most other things, BA77, but on this topic of 'evidence' and 'proof/inference' for Big-ID, for some reason you don't seem willing to face reality. And I don't think that's only because you're not a 'scientist.' There's more to it than that. "why does macro[ECONOMICS] belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?" - Torley The next time a Bank of Sweden Prize in the name of A. Nobel for Economic Sciences is awarded to a macro-economist, should we expect IDists and/or creationsts to protest loudly - "no, it *cannot* be, since there *is* no macro-economics!" Why not? "Because IDists and/or creationists say so and believe it to be true, and the world should listen because we're scientific revolutionaries!" ;)Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

AMEN,AMEN,AMEN. BINGO. There is no experiment or observation that similarity equals common descent. In fact a evolutionist here showed how it hits a nerve. They, by faith, must rely on the presumption that like equals like origin as the same. They persuade themselves that its downright obvious and reasonable to presume this as so. I see them do it in marine mammal descent claims and genetic claims and micro evidence equals macro, unobserved , evidence. The whole embracing of the fossil record works ONLY upon presumed connections due to similarity of body or parts. This is not just a logic flaw for evolution but is opposed to scientific investigation. It ios metaphysical as Mr Hunter says. even if true it still would not be biological scientific evidence for descent. Evolution has got away with making scientific theories without doing scientific investigation. Sincerely but falsely they presumed a fatal error. This can be shown to the public as a good point for why evolution is not making a scientific case.Robert Byers_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply