Are Some of Our Opponents in the Grip of a “Domineering Parasitical Ideology”?

_{Barry Arrington

November 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

[It] is now obvious that the root is we are dealing with a domineering parasitical ideology in the course of destroying its host; through its inherent undermining of responsible rational freedom, the foundation of a sound life of the mind. Immediately, science, science education, the media and policy are being eaten out from within.

Indeed. The immediate context of KF’s observation is the seeming inability of the Darwinists to understand plain English over the past few days. Allow me to establish some context. In a post over at his Sandwalk blog Larry Moran quoted me when I wrote:

For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

He then wrote:

But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.

I then provided quotations from two famous Darwinists (Collins and Coyne) using the very word “prediction”:

Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process. That is exactly what is observed.

From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed.

I also linked to Casey Luskin’s excellent article an ENV showing several more such statements. There cannot be the slightest doubt that many famous Darwinists said the theory predicts junk DNA.

“But those statements cannot possibly be predictions, because they came after junk DNA was discovered,” the Darwinists shout. One in particular (lutesuite) has started beating a drum calling for a retraction of my claim. We have two choices here:

Agree with Moran and lutesuite. But this would require us to believe Collins and Coyne are too stupid to understand what the word “prediction” means.

Disagree with Moran and lutesuite. This would require us to believe that Collins and Coyne were using the word “prediction” in a different sense than “to forecast in advance.”

I vote for (2). Is there a sense of the word “prediction” that means something other than “to forecast in advance”? It turns out there is. Collins and Coyne are not stupid. Instead, they are engaging in the commonplace act of using the term “prediction” in the sense of “retrodiction” or “postdiction”. What is that? Wikipedia explains:

Retrodiction (or postdiction . . .) is the act of making a “prediction” about the past.

My dictionary agrees.

There you have it. The mystery is solved. Collins and Coyne are not so stupid that they don’t know the meaning of the word “prediction.” Moran and lutesuite are simply wrong when they suggest they are. A prediction does not have to be temporally prior to that which is predicted if the word is used in the sense of a retrodiction.

What does all of this have to do with KF’s observation? Everything. Sadly, both Moran and lutesuite are hosting a domineering parasitical ideology that is undermining their responsible rational freedom and destroying their capacity to think clearly.

Consider this. It really is the case that for Moran and lutesuite to be correct, it must also be the case that two of the most famous scientists in the world are so staggeringly stupid that they don’t know what the word “predict” means. I do not always agree with Collins and Coyne, but it really is a little much for Moran and lutesuite to imply they are imbeciles.

The only rational conclusion is that Moran and lutesuite are wrong, and not only are they wrong, they are wrong about a very simple matter that would take only two seconds of rational thought to sort out.

But two seconds is a long time, and rational thought is hard when one is in the grip of a domineering parasitical ideology.

Comments

mohammadnursyamsu @ 254
The facts of subjectivity in for instance saying “the painting is beautiful” are that in principle we can see as fact the decision is made (beautiful is chosen in stead of ugly), we can see as fact the available options (beautiful and ugly), but we cannot see as fact the agency of the decision, which makes the decision turn out the way it does. In this example love is referred to as the agency of the decision, as “beautiful” refers to a love for the way the painting looks.
I would say that the feeling of love and the experience of beauty are both emotional and subjective experiences. They are subjective because they exist nowhere outside the individual’s subjective consciousness. As you say, one person may find a painting beautiful while another thinks it ugly. Both are equally valid claims because they refer to each persons emotional response not to a property of the painting itself. Beauty is not a physical property of the paining in the way that its size or weight are. The question is, how and why do we find things beautiful or ugly and to what extent do we have any control over such responses? If you think of a painting that you find beautiful, can you, just by an effort of will, actually find it ugly instead? If you are heterosexual, can you, just by an effort of will, find people of the same sex physically attractive and could you fall in love with them? I would say that, in most cases, the answer is ‘no’. These things are decided by influences over which we have no control and of which we are, for the most part, unaware. So, if much of who and what we are is decided for us, that we have no choice in those areas, free will is not some absolute but only a question of degree.Seversky_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

mohammadnursyamsu @ 253
But materialism provides no room for what ought, because all what exists in materialism is a matter of fact, not opinion. There is no room for the ought of opinion in materialism
That’s right. As I said, materialism is a philosophical or metaphysical claim about the nature of reality. It has nothing to say about morality or the nature of subjective experience beyond the claim that there is a material basis for them as for all other things.
And here on uncommon descent post after post you do your best to deny the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and then you support decisionmaking????
Freedom can mean different things in different contexts. It can refer to the range of behaviors that a society sanctions for its members. It can refer to the range of choices available to an individual. But in no cases are they absolute. I cannot fly unaided, like Superman, or journey to distant stars as in Star Trek no matter how much I exercise my free will. At this time they are not physically possible for me or anyone else. We are limited by material reality, whatever our will might be.Seversky_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

@Zachriel You need to shut up a lot, cow down, and try to accurately reflect the logic ordinary people use when they talk in subjective terms. That's the sort of attitude you need to have, not make stuff up yourself, not trying to play smart that you can make subjectivity consistent with materialism, just say how it works as is. I have investigated it, and the logic people use is as I have described it, you've got nothing. Materialism only provides room for producing facts, 1 to 1 models, not for opinions, expression of emotion with free will.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: The imposition of ideology on science — which is what you have advocated — is censorship. Science is usualkly considered methodologically materialist, not philosophically materialist. It's not censorship to point out that it's not science if you can't provide empirical support for a proposition. Furthermore, our position is that the distinction between natural and supernatural is ill-defined and not particularly useful except as a general rule of thumb.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, materialism is philosophy or ideology, not science. The imposition of ideology on science -- which is what you have advocated -- is censorship. If it was objectionable when the robes were clerical, it remains objectionable now that the censors are dressed up in lab coats. Enough has long since been said and cited otherwise in correction. KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Let us suppose for the sake of argument that in a particular instance, the mountain (or, more realistically, some part of it) was in fact designed, but, just as you say, there was “no scientific evidence to support [the] contention[].” Would the design inference then be false? It would be unsupported. Meanwhile, we know quite a lot about mountain formation. -- ETA: added some context for the readerZachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

bornagain: so you say the fossil record overwhelmingly supports Darwinian evolution? The claim is that the theory of Common Descent leads to verifiable predictions concerning the fossil record. Instead of posting a long list of links, why not take just one or two, and explain in your own words why you think it supports your claim.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, so you say the fossil record overwhelmingly supports Darwinian evolution? I say you are a pathological liar for repeatedly making that claim in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence! Moreover, even if CD were true, the main question to be answered, as you well know, is the origin of information.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, In Allaying Darwin’s Doubt, Two Cambrian Experts Still Come Up Short – October 16, 2015 Excerpt: “A recent analysis of disparity in 98 metazoan clades through the Phanerozoic found a preponderance of clades with maximal disparity early in their history. Thus, whether or not taxonomic diversification slows down most studies of disparity reveal a pattern in which the early evolution of a clade defines the morphological boundaries of a group which are then filled in by subsequent diversification. This pattern is inconsistent with that expected of a classic adaptive radiation in which diversity and disparity should be coupled, at least during the early phase of the radiation.” – Doug Erwin What this admits is that disparity is a worse problem than evolutionists had realized: it’s ubiquitous (throughout the history of life on earth), not just in the Cambrian (Explosion). disparity [dih-spar-i-tee] noun, plural disparities. 1. lack of similarity or equality; inequality; difference: “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.” -Dr. Mark McMenamin – 2013 Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.” (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).) “Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46. In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin’s Dilemma? – JonathanM – May 2012 Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe. per ENV “The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97. Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin January 29, 2015 Excerpt: Rather than showing gradual Darwinian evolution, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without clear evolutionary precursors. Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98 per ENV “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.” Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105. “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’ Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132. “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK) “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.” G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.” Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467. “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” – Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard “Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.” Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 “The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”. David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. – Curator of Zoological Collections “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.” Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187. “The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.” R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34. “No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links . . . There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” Niles Eldredge, quoted in George Alexander, “Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978. “Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89. For the first decade after the paper was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology. Soon the great debate among paleontologists boiled down to just a few central points, which Gould and Eldredge (1977) nicely summarized on the fifth anniversary of the paper’s release. The first major discovery was that stasis was much more prevalent in the fossil record than had been previously supposed. Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution. If species didn’t appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain relatively unchanged, then biostratigraphy would never work—and yet almost two centuries of successful biostratigraphic correlations was evidence of just this kind of pattern. As Gould put it, it was the “dirty little secret” hidden in the paleontological closet. Most paleontologists were trained to focus on gradual evolution as the only pattern of interest, and ignored stasis as “not evolutionary change” and therefore uninteresting, to be overlooked or minimized. Once Eldredge and Gould had pointed out that stasis was equally important (“stasis is data” in Gould’s words), paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later. Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-and-chimp-dna-they-really-are-about-98-similar/#comment-586768
bornagain_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Zach,
People have inferred design in everything from mountains to weather, but there is no scientific evidence to support these contentions.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that in a particular instance, the mountain (or, more realistically, some part of it) was in fact designed, but, just as you say, there was "no scientific evidence to support [the] contention[]." Would the design inference then be false?Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

bornagain: Well if the inference to design is non-scientific then so is Darwinian evolution since both use the same method of science They do? Common Descent predicts intermediate species, including fossils, which are subject to scientific investigation. Natural selection predicts how heritable composition of populations will change, which is subject to scientific investigation. And so on. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is scientifically sterile.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Well if the inference to design is non-scientific then so is Darwinian evolution since both use the same method of science (with the caveat that Darwinian evolution has no presently acting cause to appeal to, nor falsification criteria for that matter) Stephen Meyer: Charles Darwin's Methods, Different Conclusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqq6JP5gE0Ebornagain_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

bornagain: if inferring design is not intuitive for humans then why in blue blue blazes are atheists always, unsuccessfully, trying to ‘explain away’ the ‘illusion of design?’ That wasn't our claim, but rather than merely referring to intuition of design is not an argument. People have inferred design in everything from mountains to weather, but there is no scientific evidence to support these contentions. Science requires more than your subjective experience, and argument requires more than assertion. Furthermore, Box made a specific claim. Box: I understand that there is no bottom-up explanation for an organism. It’s a fundamental insight. It is impossible to explain the coherence of an organism from the level of the parts. Box claimed that it is impossible to explain the coherence of an organism from the level of the parts. The only property of organisms to which he refers is "coherence", then appeals to "fundamental insight". But we know of many phenomena which have "coherence" that do arise from the level of the parts. The argument is no different in form than: "Our argument is correct. It's a fundamental insight."Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, well if inferring design is not intuitive for humans then why in blue blue blazes are atheists always, unsuccessfully, trying to 'explain away' the 'illusion of design?' (trying to explain it away with their illusion of mind I might add) Indeed, the atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by seeing this 'illusion of design' everywhere he looked in molecular biology:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit "Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30 living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Lewontin "The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature." George Gaylord Simpson "Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 21 “I remember how frustrated I became when, as a young atheist, I examined specimens under the microscope. I would often walk away and try to convince myself that I was not seeing examples of extraordinary design, but merely the product of some random, unexplained mutations.” -Rick Oliver (‘Designed to Kill in a Fallen World.’) WJM on the truth denialism issue (of militant atheists) - Sept. 13, 2015 Excerpt: "Regardless of the overwhelming appearance of design in biology, it is possible that chance and natural law could have generated the appearance of design. That possibility of “deception” or “error” about the appearance of a thing is enough for them to deny the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.,,, IMO, Keiths et al use “bare possibility” as a means to justify their intellectual aversion to truth, because truth inexorably leads to God. They wish to deny God, and so they must avoid truth; avoiding truth means clinging to possibilities, terminologies, interpretations and philosophies that deny truth or redefines it." https://uncommondescent.com/selective-hyperskepticism/wjm-on-the-truth-denialism-issue/#comment-579896
Moreover, even though atheists can't explain how a single protein of that 'illusion of design' came about by unguided material processes, the elephant in the living room problem that is never address by atheists is much bigger than that. The elephant in the living problem is not how can unguided material processes explain the origin of a protein but "How in blue blazes do a billion-trillion proteins know how to keep a person alive for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?' If a billion-trillion proteins dedicated to the singular purposeful task of keeping a person alive for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer (Talbott post 182, 183, 184) does not constitute an inference to 'top down' design, to seeing the 'purposeful arrangement of parts', then all reason is lost and the atheist is drifting about in a Alice in Wonderland world of profound insanity.
One Body - animation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4
bornagain_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Mung: It’s like Zachriel spores all over the internet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzoZachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

bornagain: actually even Dawkins agrees with Box that inferring ‘top down’ Design is intuitive That doesn't make it an argument any more than saying "The Earth is flat" is an argument.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Zachriel in response to Box at 255, actually even Dawkins agrees with Box that inferring 'top down' Design is intuitive, i.e. Inferred not from the 'bottom up' parts themselves but from the 'top down' 'purposeful arrangement of parts' (Blind Watchmaker) Perhaps you should go correct the high priest of atheism, Dawkins, before you try to correct IDists? Life Reeks Of Design - Behe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThYbornagain_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

mohammadnursyamsu: But in essence it requires the exactsame logic to say to believe in God, as to have moral indignitation, the logic of subjectivity. Belief in God refers to a claim about something external, while moral indignation is an internal reaction. Even though people might abstract morality, it is an abstraction about an internal state. However, the subjective experience of the Divine would certainly qualify as an experience akin to experience of beauty or moral indignation, indeed, are often experienced together. mohammadnursyamsu: And materialists reject belief in God, eventhough they can see as fact that people profess belief in God, so on equal terms they would reject moral indignitation. Materialists can experience moral indignation, and there's no reason for them to ignore this experience any more than they would ignore hunger or thirst. They might even experience the supernatural, but may attribute it to "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato." mohammadnursyamsu: Love, hate, God, the soul etc. These are subjective terms. Love and hate are terms referring TO the subjective experience. The term God is usually intended to refer to something external to the self.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

@Zachriel But in essence it requires the exactsame logic to say to believe in God, as to have moral indignitation, the logic of subjectivity. And materialists reject belief in God, eventhough they can see as fact that people profess belief in God, so on equal terms they would reject moral indignitation. Very obviously subjectivity, forming opinions, simply does not work without terms referring to things the existence of which is only established by choosing they are real. Love, hate, God, the soul etc. These are subjective terms. And these terms are denied in materialism, because they do not refer to anything material.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Box: I understand that there is no bottom-up explanation for an organism. It’s a fundamental insight. It is impossible to explain the coherence of an organism from the level of the parts. Of course, you are merely asserting your position, not arguing for it. mohammadnursyamsu: But materialism provides no room for what ought, because all what exists in materialism is a matter of fact, not opinion. Materialists generally don't deny the existence of opinion, or more particularly, the existence of moral indignation.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

@ Seversky "Isn't subjectivity a fact?" The facts of subjectivity in for instance saying "the painting is beautiful" are that in principle we can see as fact the decision is made (beautiful is chosen in stead of ugly), we can see as fact the available options (beautiful and ugly), but we cannot see as fact the agency of the decision, which makes the decision turn out the way it does. In this example love is referred to as the agency of the decision, as "beautiful" refers to a love for the way the painting looks. The existence of this love is a matter of opinion, which means to say the love is real is just as valid as to say it is not real. In the same way as saying the painting is beautiful is equally valid to saying the painting is ugly. So you see subjectivity only functions in regards to acknowledging agency (creator), which chooses the way the material (creation) turns out. There is then categorized for a spiritual domain and all what exists in it is a matter of opinion, while all what exists in the material domain is categorized as factual issues.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

@seversky wrote: " Materialism and atheism are claims about what is. Morality is about how human beings should behave towards one another and, perhaps, other creatures. I see no reason why people should not decide matters of morality for themselves. " But materialism provides no room for what ought, because all what exists in materialism is a matter of fact, not opinion. There is no room for the ought of opinion in materialism. And here on uncommon descent post after post you do your best to deny the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and then you support decisionmaking???? It is all nonsense what you say, all emperor with no clothes kind of deal.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

#246 addendum Here's the rest of the discussion: @94 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584416 @110 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584439 @146 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584564 @158 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584615 @159 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584623 161 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584627 @163 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584629 @165 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584635 @181 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584679 @183 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584700 @184 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584701 @187 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584708 @188 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584713 @189 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584715 @194 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584787 @195 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584798 @197 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584855 @198 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584857 @199 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584870 @200 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584877 @202 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-585017 @215 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-585633 @219 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-586316 @220 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-586376 @221 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-586386 @222 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-587498Dionisio_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @ 148
So, if you see an adult physically abusing a child, you don’t move to stop them? You ask their consent first?
No, you stop them on the assumption that neither the child, its parents and family nor society at large have, or would, consent to the physical abuse of children.
Oh, please. You treat other adults as “adults” and through “mutual consent” only up to a certain point. Then, you act exactly like any theist and move to impose what you, at some level, consider to be absolute moral rules on anyone stepping over that line, even if most of society disagrees with you.
Of course, there will come a point where moral codes have to be enforced. The question is, what is the authority for the use of force? Is it in the unverifiable claims by some that their particular deity is the Supreme Arbiter in such matters or is it in the express will of the people who have decided amongst themselves what is best for them?
Your idea that your morality is consistent with your materialism/atheism rests upon a deep web of self-deceit and poor critical thinking – much like your idea that scientific and technological success flows from “materialism” just because the work doesn’t refer to any “god”.
Materialism and atheism are claims about what is. Morality is about how human beings should behave towards one another and, perhaps, other creatures. I see no reason why people should not decide matters of morality for themselves.
Unfortunately, there’s just no correcting useful idiots like yourself because your emotion and a priori commitments overrule your capacity to reason.
I’m not the one refusing to use my capacity to reason these things out for myself and meekly handing over responsibility to someone - or something - else.Seversky_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 141
Materialism is not responsible for the progress of science and technology, not for its roots; that you seem to think so itself speaks volumes on just how far out of touch with accurate history of ideas and of sci-tech you have become. Science is not equal to materialism, no more than that it is equal to religion, and no theory relevant to he actual progress in physics, chemistry, engineering, industry, or even medicine is critically dependent on or controlled by materialist philosophy. Those theories that are, are deeply problematic, as with evolutionary biology.
Name one of the current established theories in science that is founded on anything other than a materialist model of the world.
For, again, evolutionary materialism is self refuting and necessarily false and incoherent.
I know that’s what you believe but I’m saying you’re wrong. What we would now call science, in its broadest sense, has flourished at different times and in different places and cultures over the millenia: China, India, Egypt, Greece and medieval Muslim states, for example. Many, if not most, scientists have held religious beliefs of various sorts: Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and so on. There’ve even been a few atheists and agnostics. Christian Europe was one of the most recent cultures to foster science but it is not the parent and only Christian exceptionalism and an ignorance of the long history of science would allow one to claim otherwise.Seversky_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Moran: bornagain asks Born Again: "You know, perhaps lay out the exact ‘highly refined mathematical model’ for how the flagellum is created by unguided material processes and the experiment that verified that ‘highly refined mathematical model’ to be correct in its prediction?" Moran: "That’s like asking to show how the mathematical models of physics predict the formation of Venus. Do you realize how silly that sounds?" Larry, no. I and, and I suspect, many others DO NOT realize how silly that sounds. Please educate us. How much of your education includes the mathematical and chemical rigor of say, a person pursuing a degree in "Chemical Engineering"(which I argue is a question highly relevant to this discussion)? How much calculus have you been required to master? How about differential equations and physical chemistry. How about fluid dynamics? My hunch is that you would flunk a higher level physical chemistry course in a chemical engineering program at any reputable university. I could very well be wrong but probably not. If you have trouble distinguishing between the observations of currently observable physical processes whose measurements can empirically support the formation of physical objects such as a planet Venus, and what is required to demonstrate the origination of the living systems supporting and leading to the development of a bacterial flagellum, as well as the development of the bacterial flagellum, then this is what I think: I think you should resign immediately from your publicly funded position as an "educator" at a public university. Apologize to anyone that you engaged in these kinds of conversation with in the name of "science". And admit that you are nothing more than a "philosopher" of the "history of science" engaged in a battle defending your position of "anti-religion".bpragmatic_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

mohammadnursyamsu @ 128
You are simply rejecting subjectivity. Materialism can only deal with facts.
Isn’t subjectivity a fact?Seversky_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 126
Let me take just one angle, that of Pearcey (with a reinforcing slice of Provine):
I’ve already pointed out on at least one previous occasion that Pearcey’s case is fundamentally flawed.
An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
False dichotomy. Who says “survival-value” and “truth-value” are incompatible? Who is more likely to survive, the man who thinks that the hungry lion stalking him is just a big, fluffy kitty who wants to play or the man who thinks that the lion is a hungry predator and decides he doesn’t want to be its next meal? Sure, false beliefs might have some survival value - religion is one - but in a world that can be highly dangerous for - if not actively hostile to - human survival, having a good handle on that world gives you a big edge in terms of survival. In fact, you could say that, in the sense of mental modelling of the world in which you live, survival depends on truth.
But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
On the contrary, if survival depends on truth then that argument self-destructs.Seversky_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

#243 addendum @69 professor Moran posted his first comment that started our discussion: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584320
I followed the links but it wasn’t clear to me what the questions were and which ones you want answered. Could you post ONE question here at a time? I’ll try to answer, but first I need to know what kind of background you have. Can I assume that you understand basic evolutionary theory and that you accept common descent or do I have to begin by presenting the evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion yeas old and life began with very simple organisms over 3 billion years ago? Can I assume that you understand the basics of biochemistry and molecular biology and developmental gene regulation or do I have to explain that to you as well? Have you read any of the leading books that address your questions, like Sean Carrol’s book “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” or Stephen Jay Gould’s book “Ontogey and Phylogeny.” How about “Wonderful Life”? The problem with explaining things to creationists is that I never know where to start. Sometimes their ignorance of science is so profound that I need to start way back at square one and that’s tedious. Just look at the comments on this thread and on other recent posts. Clearly there are many of you who lack basic understanding of evolution in spite of the fact that you are vehemently opposed to evolution. You won’t even believe a fellow ID proponent like Vincent Torley when he tries to enlighten you. Don’t you see how that can be very frustrating?
Then @91 I replied: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-doesnt-like-any-of-us-not-sure-why/#comment-584389
Larry Moran @69
I followed the links but it wasn’t clear to me what the questions were and which ones you want answered. Could you post ONE question here at a time?
Professor Moran, Thank you for your comment and for your willingness to graciously share your vast scientific knowledge here. Ok, as per your request, let’s do one question at a time, and let’s start from a simple Yes/No question: Do YOU know exactly HOW morphogen gradients are formed, at least one case? Please, just answer YES or NO, without any additional explanation, comments or questions. Only one word: yes or no. That’s all for now. Thank you again.
Dionisio_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

"Do you realize how silly that sounds?" Not nearly as silly as you saying that unguided material processes could EVER build a flagellum given all the time in the universe. Which is still yet orders of magnitude not as silly as you saying unguided material processes created your 'beyond belief' brain. And by the way, unlike your 'highly refined mathematical model' for which you claim real world testing is 'silly', you do realize that ID has its own 'highly refined mathematical model' that actually does hold up to real world testing? In fact, just one instance of unguided material processes creating functional information would falsify Dembski and Marks' conservation of information theorem (and thus falsify Intelligent Design). Abel puts the falsification threshold for ID like this:
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
Of related note
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
By the way, Perry Marshall has organized a 3 million dollar prize for anyone who can lay out the math and empirics for how coded information is created by unguided material processes. Perhaps you would like to toss your 'highly refined mathematical model' in the ring for the prize? :)
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery. We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
bornagain_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

bornagain asks
You know, perhaps lay out the exact ‘highly refined mathematical model’ for how the flagellum is created by unguided material processes and the experiment that verified that ‘highly refined mathematical model’ to be correct in its prediction?
That's like asking to show how the mathematical models of physics predict the formation of Venus. Do you realize how silly that sounds?Larry Moran_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply