Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A note on why people profess belief in the obviously false…

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

PHIL Image 9875In the comments box at Miller’s Mendacity, Barry Arrington asks

It is getting to the point that refuting the nonsense is almost beside the point. No one believes it, least of all those who say they do. As you’ve been saying for some time now, the really interesting story here is the psychological story. Why do people profess belief in the obviously false?

Okay: Why do people profess belief in the obviously false? A couple notes:

– The belief that randomness produces information (central to Darwinism) is obviously false. It’s never been demonstrated because it can’t be. It is assumed.

It is assumed for the same reasons as the existence of a multiverse or a naturalist explanation for consciousness are assumed. And often spelled out: Any other approach raises the spectre of design.

Why? The unwillingness to confront something that appears dreadful often forces people to indulge beliefs known to be false (or unfalsifiable).

Let’s say a person has a skin itch that needs scratching. But he doesn’t want to consider what it might mean. What does he do? First, he drops a wad on over-the-counter symptom relievers. Then he goes on the internet, and embraces and discards various medical theories.

He won’t go see a skin specialist precisely because the specialist might identify the problem correctly, forcing a choice: Do I really want this situation to get better or not? Am I prepared to make the needed changes?

If the answer is no, he will typically not only continue to embrace the obviously false theory but try to enforce it. That’s the basis of the Darwin lobby’s finely honed enforcement skills and dramas around evolution.

– Some people also attempt to divert attention to a separate question: “Why do people profess belief in things that are not obviously true”? Hence various sludge theories in evolutionary psychology about why people believe in God.

Notice that the same people never focus the equivalent type of attention on questions like “Why do people believe in democracy?” or “Why do people believe in saving the whales?”

Because they know as well as anyone else that most matters in life stop short of incontestable proof, such as can be had in simple mathematics. Most of the time, we make do with “balance of evidence” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt.”

And that is just the problem. Naturalism and its creation story Darwinism are anomalous in that they are among the few beliefs that are false beyond reasonable doubt, but highly profitable to their purveyors. Especially because they must go on believing it themselves. Or pretending to. Or, more usually, something in between, always hoping …

Prediction: On that account, we will see much more crazy stuff in the near future.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

 

Comments
Neil, We need to be clear about what we are arguing about. Since now I know you teach cryptography, and you know I am a software engineer in cryptography, maybe we can stop believing that this has to do with ignorance. I apologize for assuming you did not know about cryptography. But having gotten that out of the way, you have to be able to see my position. The initial argument is about whether randomness can create information. The sub-argument was not about whether a random key contains information. It does in the sense that it records a series of almost random events ( a bit 1 or 0). The sub-argument was about whether producing a random key "creates" information. It does not. Here is the reasoning for the clear difference. 1. The exact content of the key does not matter. It could have 1's or 0's in any of its bits. Once it is created, intelligent beings can use the fact that it is a random sequence to do tasks with it like secure a connection. But the creation of the random sequence itself if not creation of information by randomness. 2. The program that produces the key, labels this key in a cert and passes it to the programs that need it and all of the infrastructure to do this is where the information is created. It took many intelligent engineers to design a system so that transactions could be done over the internet. These intelligent being created information in that they made the choice to create an algorithm to generate n-length random key to secure the transaction. The net of the above points is that this is not an example where information is created from randomness. It is an example where intelligent beings can use the fact that something is random, to accomplish a task. Furthermore, by its nature, a random process can not create information. The very definition of randomness means that an event does not have any causal connection with the previous events. I agree the exact sequence of random events that has occured IS information. It is information because it is a sequence of events that have to be produced in an order. It is not information produced by randomness because the memory of the order of the events is what is information, not the sequence itself.JDH
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Obviously, you don’t know that I am a senior software engineer that works for a leading cyber security vendor.
That doesn't actually matter. For all I know, you might have been a student in one of my cryptography classes. I go by what you write, not by the credentials that you claim.
Producing a random key does not create information. If it did, the content of the key would matter. i.e. if the 100 bit was on in the key it would be different than if the 100th bit was off. This is not true.
This is nonsense. Try changing one bit of the encryption key at just the receiving site, in the middle of the connection. See if the communication can continue. Or record all of the data sent in an encrypted session, and see if you can read it with a different key. Those won't work. The problem is that you are confused about "information". You want to use "information" only for that which directly and immediately informs you. Except you also want to use "information" for an amino acid sequence in DNA which does not directly and immediately inform you. You cannot have it both ways.Neil Rickert
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
@Neil Rickert Hi Neil. I love your claim that I don't know anything about encryption. Obviously, you don't know that I am a senior software engineer that works for a leading cyber security vendor. But I would't expect you to know that. Producing a random key does not create information. If it did, the content of the key would matter. i.e. if the 100 bit was on in the key it would be different than if the 100th bit was off. This is not true. The only information that is there, is that the key is sufficiently random as to not be hacked in finite time. This information was present when the algorithm was implemented. Please do not respond with another inaccurate ad hominem attack. I humbly submit, that in at least this area, know what I am talking about.JDH
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
BA77: "“It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns”" Nobody has said that mutations were random with respect to location on DNA strand. Just that they are random with respect to fitness. Which has been demonstrated repeatedly. Scientifically and statistically.Indiana Effigy
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
I love it when people talk about a field they obviously do not know to analogize something that they desperately want to believe.
JDH then talks about a field that he obviously does not know, so that he can promote something that he desperately wants to believe. The irony is delicious.
Neil – when I perform a bank transaction, I am not using “…randomness to produce information…” I am using randomness to hide information.
Randomness is used to produce the encryption key. The encryption key is the information that controls the encrypted communication for that session. The encryption key must first be communicated to the other side of the connection. It is shared information between the two parties (the server and client). Communicating the encryption key uses a different kind of encryption (public key encryption). If the encryption key needs to be communicated, it is information. If there were no information in the key, then you could do the encryption without the key. Since you cannot do the encryption without the key, it must be false that there is no information. As far as we know, the encryption key is random, rather than pseudo-random. Modern operating system make use of apparently random events to build up a pool of entropy (randomness) that can be used to generate encryption keys.Neil Rickert
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Do all the people that believe that randomness can create information understand that all randomness can do is create a fluctuation? Without an intelligent agent purposely guiding the flow of actions in a definite direction, there can be no increase in one direction that can not be undone by another random action. IOW there exist no natural ratchets on information. What can be randomly assembled, must be able to be randomly disassembled. BTW - I don't think the best argument is so much that Darwinism is obviously false. What I think is a better argument is that the statement: "I am an intelligent advocate for Darwinism." can not possibly be true. 1. Assume you think Darwinism is false. Then the statement above is false. You could not think Darwinism is false and intelligently advocate for it. 2. Assume you think Darwinism is true. Then you must realize that your advocacy of Darwinism is not because you used your intelligence to conclude it to be true. The fact you think Darwinism to be true must be just the result of random changes over time to the DNA which created your brain by processes which are unguided and can not possibly come to an intelligent conclusion because by its random nature it could have just as easily come to a different conclusion. So, if you believe Darwinism to be false, the statement must be false. If you believe Darwinism to be true, the statement must be false. There are no other possibilities - hence the statement is false. QEDJDH
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
@Neil Rickert @4
Whenever you login to your bank site, or whenever you shop at Amazon, you are using randomness to produce information. The encryption technology depends on it, and it works very well.
I love it when people talk about a field they obviously do not know to analogize something that they desperately want to believe. It tends to show the emptiness of their arguments. Neil - when I perform a bank transaction, I am not using "...randomness to produce information..." I am using randomness to hide information. The pseudo random numbers used in the encryption algorithms do not produce any information. They obscure the information from those who don't know the random secret. BTW - the thinking and planning that when into the design of the encryption algorithms that enable a bank transaction to occur over the internet demonstrate intelligent design.JDH
April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
"It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns” James Shapiro - Evolution: A View From The 21st Century - (Page 82) Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract also of note: Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.htmlbornagain77
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Neil Rickert at 7: As you realize, if randomness was all that was available, there would be no currency or bank machines at all. Randomness does not produce complex, specified information but, as readers will realize, intelligent agents can harness randomness for a purpose (the lady who turns the crank on the bingo ball dispenser at my father's retirement home will attest to that). But her system was set up by intelligent agents to create randomness to achieve a specified goal. One assumes that this is not the best you can offer.News
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Mung @6: "Indiana Effigy claims it is randomness that creates information, but then later admits it’s a result of selection." It is random mutations (amongst other things) that create the variation in the population that selection works on. So which is it?Indiana Effigy
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
In Darwinian thinking, the only way a plant or animal becomes fitter than its relatives is by sustaining a serendipitous mutation. If the mutation makes the organism stronger, faster, or in some way hardier, then natural selection can take over from there and help make sure its offspring grow numerous. Yet until the random mutation appears, natural selection can only twiddle its thumbs. Michael Behe The Edge of Evolution
RexTugwell
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Oh didn’t you know? The party line goes like this “Evolution is a process for which there is, literally, mountains of evidence. It is predictive, it is falsifiable (but has never been falsified in 150 years), and it is supported and confirmed by all new discoveries in genetics, paleontology, ecology, etc. It is the antithesis of "creationism" which is based on NO evidence other than biblical text, which is laughably wrong” I think it’s because very few people actually stop and think for themselves, and because the implications of one day standing before a Higher Power and having the secrets of your heart revealed and judged before all, IS well kind of frightening.reverendspy
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
not that you will ever listen, but anyways for onlookers: Debate Debrief: The Two-Prong Canard Demonstrated Within 24 Hours - The Curious Case of Nylonase – March 20, 2016 - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: Such adaptation to nylon manufacture byproducts has been repeated in laboratory experiments. In a matter of months bacteria acquire the ability to digest the unforeseen chemical. Researchers speculate that mechanisms responding to environmental stress are involved in inducing adaptive mutations. That is not evolution. In fact it refutes evolution. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/03/debate-debrief-two-prong-canard.html Character and Theology Aside, What About Denis Lamoureux's Science? - David Klinghoffer - March 21, 2016 Excerpt: Lamoureux mentioned the discovery of Nylon-eating bacteria as empirical proof that evolution can create new complex specified information and new proteins (nylonase enzyme) within only 40 years of time.,, Newer research by Negoro et al. (2007) has shown that the nylonase enzyme did not evolve by gene duplication and frameshift mutation as originally assumed, but arose from a pre-existing carboxyesterase enzyme, which already had some capacity to degrade nylon oligomers. In other words: Nylonase is NOT new information (also see here)! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/character_and_t102708.html Even Wikipedia as of January 2016, which is notorious for its bias against Intelligent Design, admits that nylonase 'most probably developed as a single-step mutation', thus the adaptation is well within what Dr. Behe has set for the 'Edge of Evolution': Nylon-eating bacteria - Mar. 2016 Excerpt: There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria#Role_in_evolution_teaching Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information - September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski's research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918 - John Sanford - R. Carter http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-42.pdfbornagain77
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
The belief that randomness produces information (central to Darwinism) is obviously false. It’s never been demonstrated because it can’t be. It is assumed.
Whenever you login to your bank site, or whenever you shop at Amazon, you are using randomness to produce information. The encryption technology depends on it, and it works very well.Neil Rickert
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Indiana Effigy claims it is randomness that creates information, but then later admits it's a result of selection. So which is it?Mung
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
I think evolution is random, accidental, no design in it at all. - B.F. SkinnerMung
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
And Behe has shown the prodigious amounts of information malaria can produce with a population of 10^20. In fact, not much at all. AIDS mutates ten thousand times faster than most other organisms. If that were a good thing, why isn't that the mutation rate for the rest of the biosphere?RexTugwell
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
"As Indiana Effigy at 1 knows, by “information,” one means here complex, specified information, produced in vast interlocking patterns on a regular basis." Are you suggesting that nylonase is not a complex, specified information, produced in a vast interlocking pattern? Every small change in a gene is a change in information. at no time does the theory of evolution say that evolution must result in an increase in information. Nylonase is a new protein with a unique function. As such, it meets your definition of increased complex functional information. Lenski's experiments show an increase in complex functional information. The flu virus changes quite frequently and obtains new function. This is also an increase in complex functional information. The previous strain does not die when a new strain evolves. As such, information has increased. As I said previously, examples of information increases as the result of selection working on random mutations (and other sources of variation) surround us. Btw, will the winter in Ottawa never end?Indiana Effigy
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
As Indiana Effigy at 1 knows, by "information," one means here complex, specified information, produced in vast interlocking patterns on a regular basis. Thanks for enabling me to clarify that without having to introduce it into the body text. There it confuses the new reader, who is used to the simpler language of science writer-approved naturalist assumptions. Most people understand what is said above. Giving themselves permission to take in the implications is a different matter.News
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
This is a very good argument except that it is based on a false (and repeatedly falsified) assumption. "The belief that randomness produces information (central to Darwinism) is obviously false. It’s never been demonstrated because it can’t be. It is assumed." Although you are misrepresenting evolution by just referring to randomness alone, I will leave that oft repeated false creationist meme alone. The literature is full of examples of randomness creating the information (variation) that is acted on by selection. Nylonase, Lenski, AIDS, the flu virus. Or do you think that changing the flu vaccine every year is a conspiracy by the drug companies?Indiana Effigy
April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply