Big Bang theory is too big to fail, philosophers of science complain

JVL:

In the last 150 years unguided evolutionary theory has been modified and changes many times because new data and processes were discovered and incorporated.

There still isn't any scientific theory of evolution by means of unguided processes. That's because no one knows how to test the claim that unguided processes did it.

Let’s start with: does ID have a research agenda?

Yes. However unguided evolution does not. You lose. ET

Of semi related note to the fact that Darwinists have, essentially, "lost their mind" in believing that life can be an accident, is this beautiful quote from Neil Thomas, "This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity."

How I Came to Take Leave of Darwin: A Coda Neil Thomas - November 15, 2021 After seeing my recent book through to publication, I began to experience the gnawing feeling that, although I had undoubtedly given it my best shot, I had not completely “nailed” the puzzling phenomenon of just why the Western world had come to accept ideas of evolution and natural selection which I personally had come to see as little but Victorian fables or, more politely phrased, cosmogenic myths for a materialist age. I therefore decided to embark on a companion volume, provisionally titled False Messiah: Darwin’s Origin of Species as Cosmogenic Myth. Here I will make the attempt to drill down even further to the root causes of what appeared to be the Western world’s unprecedented rejection of tried-and-tested philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and the physician Galen in a strange capitulation to “out there” philosophic fantasists like Epicurus and his Roman disciple, Lucretius. It was the would-be rehabilitation of those ancient materialist thinkers by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, in the late 18th century, coupled with the later Victorian crisis of faith and the sudden irruption into this already volatile mix of Charles Darwin which was to result in the particularly strange irrationalism which has stubbornly persisted right up to the present day. This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/how-i-came-to-take-leave-of-darwin-a-coda/

bornagain77

JVL@ 15... What does a research agenda have to do with whether Neo-Darwinism being too big to fail? Please also don't skip over what everyone just posted between our posts. JVL, do you hold to the Neo-darwinist model as the origin of all the diversity of life? Everyone, do you know what would be refreshing.... if any of the darwinists on here would be willing, post a post where you critique modern evolutionary theory... show us that you have heard the data and arguments and you can put them together in a cohesive critique of the theory. Do it honestly, then maybe we wouldn't have to circle back all the time. I dare you to compile data and arguments for the statement "Neo-darwinism is not valid as an explanation for the development of all diversity of life on earth" Will you accept the challenge? SEV, CD, JVL, whoever else? Lets see if you can make a good case against your accepted view? That's intellectual honesty. I'm sure plenty of posters on here could post an argument in favor of Neo-darwinism to communicate that we understand what darwinists posit and are saying. zweston

In the last 150 years unguided evolutionary theory has been modified and changes many times because new data and processes were discovered and incorporated. If the right data and processes are discovered then, potentially, the whole thing could be replaced.

No it essentially hasn’t changed. It is a model based on DNA though Darwin didn’t know that. But he described a process of small changes to DNA (animal breeding) which would then lead to larger changes. That still is the model taught everywhere. But it’s wrong because DNA is not the origin/basis for Evolution. It does lead to micro evolution but micro evolution does not add up to macro evolution even after a trillion steps. That was Darwin’s fatal mistake and all evolutionary biology has followed in lock step. PS: Darwinism is great science. It’s just has nothing to do with Evolution. It’s the science of genetics. jerry

JVL claims,

"In the last 150 years unguided evolutionary theory has been modified and changes many times because new data and processes were discovered and incorporated. If the right data and processes are discovered then, potentially, the whole thing could be replaced."

That claim reminds me of the time that Natural Selection itself, (Charles Darwin's main claim to scientific fame), was thrown under the bus by the mathematics of population genetics, and neutral theory was adopted, and the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted that "A critique of neo-Darwinism can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science." To which David Berlinski quipped, "By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian."

Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial - David Berlinski - November 2011 Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura's theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma (since Natural Selection no longer played a role), but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. "A critique of neo-Darwinism," the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, "can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science." By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/berlinski_on_darwin_on_trial053171.html

In short, with the adoption of the 'neutral theory' of evolution by prominent Darwinists, (such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran), and the casting aside of Natural Selection as a major player in evolution, Darwinists, (at least the ones who know that natural selection has now been falsified as the supposed 'designer substitute' by the mathematics of population genetics), are now reduced to arguing that chance alone, all by its lonesome, is the cause for the 'appearance of design' that we see permeating life. As Austin Hughes stated 'Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.'

Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory - Laurence A. Moran - June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html

Yet, even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance alone, all by its lonesome, can explain life to be "absolutely inconceivable". Specifically, in the following video Richard Dawkins states that, “it cannot come about by chance. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance.'

4:30 minute mark: "It cannot come about by chance. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That's absolutely out.,,, It's out of the question.,,, So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins - From a Frog to a Prince - video https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267

To put it even more bluntly than Richard Dawkins did with his 'absolutely inconceivable' quote, Jay Homnick states, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”

It’s Really Not Rocket Science – Granville Sewell – November 16, 2015 Excerpt: “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” Jay Homnick – American Spectator 2005 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt100911.html

Moreover, even though Natural Selection itself is now known to be falsified by population genetics itself, the vast majority of Darwinists, even in the peer-reviewed literature such as ENCODE, still speak of Natural Selection as if it has not been falsified.

“a pervasive problem in biology is the religious adherence to the idea that natural selection is solely responsible for every feature of biological diversity.,,,, Some have gone so far as to proclaim that virtually any nucleotide that is at least occasionally transcribed or bound to a protein must be maintained by selection (ENCODE Project Consortium 2012). Such arguments are inconsistent with substantial theory and empirical work suggesting that many aspects of gene and genome evolution are consequences of the limitations of natural selection (Kimura 1983; Lynch 2007). This raises the key question as to the level of biological organization above which selection can be safely assumed to be the only driving force of evolution.” – MIchael Lynch - 2019 https://biodesign.asu.edu/sites/default/files/new_centers/Introduction.pdf

Moreover, besides the fact that Natural Selection has now been falsified as the supposed 'designer substitute',,,

“Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

,,, besides the fact that Natural Selection has now been falsified as the supposed 'designer substitute', mutations themselves are now shown, in the vast majority of instances, not to be random but to be directed,

1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734315

Thus JVL's claim that "If the right data and processes are discovered then, potentially, the whole thing could be replaced" is simply a false claim. The 'whole thing' of Darwin's theory persists in spite of the fact that both Natural Selection and Random Mutations have been falsified. Besides the falsifications of Natural Selection and Random Mutations, there are many other falsifications of Darwin's theory, falsifications that go to the core of the theory, that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory,

1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Darwinism vs. Falsification - list and link to defence of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

Thus it is simply laughable that JVL would try to claim that Darwin's theory is open to potential falsification. Darwin's theory is simply impervious to empirical falsification, and as such "it does not speak about reality."

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper

Verse:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

bornagain77

JVL That is false. In the last 150 years unguided evolutionary theory has been modified and changes many times because new data and processes were discovered and incorporated.

Has been modified common descent fable ? When ?

It seems that ID hasn’t generated enough work or results to be of much use.

Did you mistake ID for Origin Of Life research? ID is normal science with an very small update Flash news : - functional information that runs complex systems is not generated by natural laws. -functional information of life is much more complex than functional information created by human mind. -life is functionally COHERENT and its codes are too complex to be broken by humans but we recognize what A CODE is even if we can't break it. Lieutenant Commander Data

Zweston: Evolution is too big to fail. That is false. In the last 150 years unguided evolutionary theory has been modified and changes many times because new data and processes were discovered and incorporated. If the right data and processes are discovered then, potentially, the whole thing could be replaced. Are you going to answer the question? Let's start with: does ID have a research agenda? JVL

JVL @ 10.... I feel like you just gave a more nuanced response that boils ultimately down to "why can't your stuff make peer review?".... what's interesting is the title of the thread and the article points to the same problem for alternative theories to the Big Bang.... re-read the article. Evolution is too big to fail. Of the claims and studies and observations that ID makes...what is incorrect? What scientifically is flawed about what they are doing? zweston

CD @ 11.... If the evidence leads to God, why is it contemptible? What is your beef scientifically with the conclusions of ID... that life is intelligently designed and cannot be the results only of natural material processes. Why is a reference to a transcendent creative being defaulted as not reasonable or bad a priori? What evidence would there have to be for you to rule out naturalism/materialism a priori? Maybe consciousness, Near Death experiences, miracles, mathematical near impossibility of life randomly assembling itself, fine tuning of the universe, lots of counter evidence to the proposed darwinistic paradigm? I haven't been around here that long. But, I haven't seen where you have shown where ID has been wrong or insufficient in their findings, objections, and conclusions... it seems you are just repulsed with religion. I'm just going to go out on a limb... it seems, in my opinion, CD and Sev's problems have to do with the Character of God, not really with the science of ID. They don't like the implications of the Biblical God being real. If you only saw the big picture... God made things very good, then we were deceived and put under a spell by Satan, then we have all gone astray. Everyone knows this world is messed up, and atheists love to raise the problem of evil...but the problem of evil implies a standard of Good that none of us have achieved, which is an appeal to God ultimately... I digress.... God's heart is to restore the world and reclaim the ground taken by the evil one. He is a Re- God... Restore, reconcile, regenerate, reclaim, resurrection, redemption... His character is such that he is on a reclamation project and invites all of us to join into it... if we would just accept the offering that breaks the curse on sin. Heaven isn't some celestial spiritual realm... it's earth restored to what it was always supposed to be. The New Earth is called that for a reason... it will be like it is now, but all the idolatry and corruption destroyed and a right relationship and fellowship with our creator restored. God's dwelling place will be with man. It's really quite amazing. It's why we all love a good super-hero or redemption story. It's just a copy of the greatest story ever told. It's why we are repulsed by death, because we weren't created to die. Now, you can raise all kinds of objections and ask questions, sure, but there isn't a better story out there. There just isn't. God is a reclaiming God..and he has made a way for us to get back to the very good He intended. Follow the science...it leads to God. It does. Everything you observe screams it as well. The ID movement is a response to the current paradigm that has brainwashed several generations to discount their instincts and intuition that the world is created and designed... mankind has corrupted a good thing, which is scientific investigation. Money, power, funding, and ultimately a worldview that despises theism is the culprit of that. All roads lead to Jesus Christ. I do think you guys know that. You just don't like it for now. God is way better than you think. And if you say he's bad...I'd ask...by what standard? Says who? zweston

>"Why do you think that, unlike the other fields cited, ID has no research agenda, no dedicated journals, not much of a publication record, little to no objective tests or criteria, few academic conferences." Same answer I gave last time: far less money than the reigning paradigm has at its disposal. And those in the top paradigm don't give that up. Perhaps your idealism about science is a little too...idealistic. Factor human nature in, and the way science operates starts to make a lot more sense. EDTA

#9 Origenes

Let’s get serious for once Chuck. You seem to have a problem with ID, but you won’t tell us what it is.... Explain yourself.

Actually I've explained my "problem with ID" a number of times in these comments, apparently to no avail. Simply put, I have a "problem" with religion masquerading as science and the implications thereof. From the drafting of the Wedge Document in 1998 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) to publication of Meyer's "God hypothesis" book this year, the religious (i.e. Christian) underpinnings of ID have always been the real agenda of the ID movement. chuckdarwin

Origenes: Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Not saying the methods of ID are similar to those used in the other fields cited but I was wondering . . . Why do you think that, unlike the other fields cited, ID has no research agenda, no dedicated journals, not much of a publication record, little to no objective tests or criteria, few academic conferences, no departments even considering Christian or Bible college or theological institutions? It seems that ID hasn't generated enough work or results to be of much use. Or, not? I don't know of any field researchers who are using ID-style methods to shine a light on possible design inferences. But I may be wrong. JVL

ChuckDarwin:

This is not a scientific forum, but an ideological hodgepodge of religion and evolution-bashing with the occasional ad hominem directed towards those of us that refuse to drink the ID kool aid.

Let's get serious for once Chuck. You seem to have a problem with ID, but you won't tell us what it is. ID is the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). So again, what is your problem with ID? Is it perhaps your position that there are no intelligently designed objects? Or is it your position that intelligent design is undetectable by science? Or do you have an emotional problem with the implications of ID? Explain yourself. Origenes

I’m here in part measure for entertainment and part measure to comment on the more outlandish things that appear in these articles.

Sounds like another commenter who comes here and provides nothing. Nitpicking is a characteristic of an unserious person.

This is not a scientific forum… ideological hodgepodge of religion and evolution-bashing with the occasional ad hominem

Actually better science is often presented here than on nearly every other forum around. Interesting is how often ChuckDarwin is the one who brings up religion and throws ad hominems. jerry

Big Bang has been flawed for decades. The only reason it has not been tossed aside as a valid theory is emotional attachment of perception. If someone perceives something to be so, they find ways to make it so. BobRyan

ChuckyD, “I’m not here to debate science within these comments. That is pointless. This is not a scientific forum,(science can only be spoken of in scientific forums?) but an ideological hodgepodge of religion (so you are against people whom hold to a particular religion) and evolution-bashing (evolution bashing? Ah right the sacred cow, my apologies.) with the occasional ad hominem directed towards those of us that refuse to drink the ID kool aid. (Kinda like how mainstream employs ad hominem towards those of a religious nature) I’m here in part measure for entertainment (strange form of entertainment. Whatever floats your boat I suppose) and part measure to comment on the more outlandish things that appear in these articles. Like the one above that coyly and ridiculously suggests that cosmologists are responding to Meyer’s book as the impetus for their research programs.“(so you are privileged to information regarding whether or not these cosmologists are or are not responding to Meyer’s book.) Your right this is entertaining chuckyD. Seekers

When an entire discipline is devoted to adding decimal places to one number, and the number represents a perfectly untestable hypothesis, something is wrong. The discipline is treating the untestable hypothesis as a proven fact. It may be correct or not, but more decimal places don't bring us closer to answering the basic question. Science is supposed to be EXPERIMENTING, not polishing up an unexperimentable axiom. polistra

Macro-evolution, as you call it, will stand or fall on it’s own merits. As to the rest, I’m not here to debate science within these comments. That is pointless. This is not a scientific forum, but an ideological hodgepodge of religion and evolution-bashing with the occasional ad hominem directed towards those of us that refuse to drink the ID kool aid. I’m here in part measure for entertainment and part measure to comment on the more outlandish things that appear in these articles. Like the one above that coyly and ridiculously suggests that cosmologists are responding to Meyer’s book as the impetus for their research programs. chuckdarwin

CD, you always duck in, ignore the main point of it all, make a quick non-sequitur comment and move on.... You don't think the uptick in creative alternative theories to the Big Bang is at all related to lay people understanding the implications of a finite universe? Or even the scientists reading things like Meyer's book? Is macroevolution too big to fail? Do you think science is as critical of the theory as the well established Big Bang theory? Why or why not? zweston

Recent months have seen a number of opinion pieces against the Big Bang. Some think that’s related to Steve Meyer’s The Return of the God Hypothesis. Nah. Can’t be.

And who are these “some” that think that? Puh-leeze……… chuckdarwin

The irony isn't lost on me. If only they were as critical of macroevolution...but that's the theory that their whole worldview hinges on. zweston