Burdens of Proof

_{Barry Arrington
July 15, 2016

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

I welcome Matspirit to these pages, because he gives us a never ending supply of materialist error to discuss. In his latest he addresses the origin of life debate. He says that all materialists have to do is make wildly implausible evidence-free assertions about OOL, and unless ID proponents can affirmatively disprove those wildly implausible evidence-free assertions, the materialists win the debate. Gpuccio shoots this lunacy down: Matspirit:

Prove that the DNA/RNA system we see today is the only one that ever existed. Prove that a simpler system didn’t exist long before and evolve the start of our present system.

Gpuccio

No. The system we see today is a fact, because we can observe it. It is the only system we can observe which can do what it does. If you try to explain its origin by stating that simpler systems existed in the past, it’s your burden to support that hypothesis by reasonable facts and inferences. We have no reason to “prove” that your unsubstantiated assumptions are wrong. They are unsubstantiated, and that’s enough to dismiss them, unless and until you substantiate them. Again, you must prove, or at least reasonably support (nothing is ever proved in empirical sciences) your hypothesis. This is basic epistemology. How can you discuss science, if you betray the basics of scientific thought with each new statement of yours?

Comments

sagebrush gardener @25 Would post @32 help to reinforce your arguments?Dionisio_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

gouccio @29 Your interlocutor might benefit from seriously reading the post @32 too. :)Dionisio_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

rvb8 claims that
Faith, goes exactly against our evolved curiosity and therefore leaves us psychologically desperately trying to fill this ‘curiosity gap’.
Besides the fact that atheists have not one shred of empirical evidence that curiosity, nor any other mental attribute of consciousness, ever evolved, the blind faith displayed by atheists in unguided material processes to create, not only the universe, but the unfathomable complexity being dealt with in life, puts the faith that Christians have in God to shame.
Atheism and the remarkable faith of the atomist by Dave Armstrong • May 12, 2016 Excerpt: The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter — arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that “god-matter” does using science alone. Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind. It is quite ironic, then, to hear the constant charge that we Christians have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible faith, as opposed to the self-described “rational, intellectual and sophisticated” atheist. In reality, atheistic belief is [see my explanatory “disclaimer” at the end] a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort. The ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine, defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, believes trillions of “atom-gods” and their distant relatives, the “cell-gods,” make everything in the universe occur by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is god”). To the atomist, trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The atomist openly and unreservedly worships these trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.” http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2016/05/atheism-remarkable-faith-atomist/
And if you doubt that Atheistic materialists really do bestow omnipotence and omniscience on material particles, you need look no further than the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The material particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone simply observes a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes.
Too many worlds - Philip Ball - Feb. 17, 2015 Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way. That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,, http://aeon.co/magazine/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy/ A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation - (Inspiring Philosophy - 2014) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g
i.e. Many worlds is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to in order to ‘explain away' wave function collapse! To call this blind faith that atheists have in material particles bizarre and irrational is to be kind in your description of their blind faith in material particles! Of related note, contrary to the many worlds interpretation of atheists, where the material particle is basically given omnipotent power to create a virtual infinity of parallel universes every time someone simply observes a material particle, the following experiment shows that the collapse of the wave function is indeed a real effect. Thus, the following experiment empirically falsified the atheist's contention that material particles somehow have the omnipotent power to create universes within themselves,
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' - March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle. ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle's wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, "Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman. "Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. "However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices." "Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong." http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html
bornagain77_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @19 [Follow-up addendum to post @21] In light of some seemingly uninformed (or intentionally misleading?) comments posted by at least one of your interlocutors in this thread, regarding the association between the terms "bacteria flagellum" and "motor", here are few posts (@1692-1698) referencing relatively recent papers on that topic: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-612824 @1692 Diverse high-torque bacterial flagellar motors assemble wider stator rings using a conserved protein scaffold @1693-1695 Molecular Architecture of the Bacterial Flagellar Motor in Cells @1696 Internal and external components of the bacterial flagellar motor rotate as a unit @1697 How Biophysics May Help Us Understand the Flagellar Motor of Bacteria Which Cause Infections @1698 Dynamism and regulation of the stator, the energy conversion complex of the bacterial flagellar motor If your interlocutor still doesn't get it, there are more papers on the same subject. Actually there will be more in the days ahead. The ongoing research on that particular issue is far from over. We ain't seen nothing yet. :)Dionisio_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

RVB8 How exactly did curiosity evolve? Did it evolve like morals?Andre_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

rvb8, @22
rvb8: I don’t know. No one knows. But what I do know is that the theories being proposed are infinately more substantial, plausible, and intellectually fulfilling, and satisfying than saying, ‘the Designer did it.’
There is a fundamental problem with the mode of explanation you propose; even if we allow for the unlikely possibility that ‘explanations’ like “sheer dumb luck” and “for no reason at all” can be experienced as substantial, plausible and intellectually fulfilling, as you claim. The fundamental problem with the idea that biological functions are produced by blind particles bumping into each other and sheer dumb luck is that it undercuts rationality and personhood. IOWs a theory which states that bottom-up blind processes explain biological functions — including personhood and rationality —, can, in principle, never be intellectually fulfilling, since it does not accommodate personhood and rationality.
Lewis: If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.

Haldane: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays, 1927]
Origenes_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Seversky: "The bacterial flagellum is nothing like that." The flagellum is a machine. A molecular machine. Human design can build machines, potentially of any level of complexity, and of any type. The simple facts is: the conscious processes of cognitive understanding (intelligence) and feeling and will (desire and initiation of purposeful action) are capable of generating complex functional information. Nothing else has ever been proven capable to do that.gpuccio_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

Seqenenre: "Isn’t it also true then that ID has the burden of proof to show that an Intelligent Designer is capable of making a flagellum?" I don't understand your point. Obviously, intelligent design can achieve that kind of results. We have so many examples of machines designed by humans, which achieve remarkable levels of complex functional information. The computer you are using to read this post of mine is certainly a good example. Humans have achieved remarkable successes even in the field of biological engineering, as you probably will acknowledge. I can agree that at present we are not smart enough to compete with the level of biological design that we observe in living beings. Indeed, we are very far from that. But it is simply a question of time. We can certainly achieve new successes as we improve our designing ability with biological things. It is perfectly reasonable that in some time we can project and implement biological machines of the same complexity as the flagellum, using exactly the same design principles that we already use in other fields (like computers), or in biological engineering. The simple point is: intelligent design can generate complex functional information, while non design systems cannot. That is the core of ID theory, a theory which is absolutely supported by observed facts.gpuccio_{July 16, 2016
July
07
Jul
16
16
2016
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Rvb8 How do we test your luck chance event? How do we replicate it? How do we observe it? Which natural riddles have you explained?Andre_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Andre. Because it assuages our evolved curiosity. Faith, goes exactly against our evolved curiosity and therefore leaves us psychologically desperately trying to fill this 'curiosity gap'. When we explain one natural riddle we happily move onto the next. At the moment it is how did chemicals come together to produce organic life. And I am very sorry to have to tell you, but the possible answers produced by the scientific community are indeed more fulfilling than suggesting an unaccountable, nebulous, unknowable Designer moulded Nature.rvb8_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

Mung @20
An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Given a flagellum, there is nothing that converts anything to anything.
Obviously the flagellum is driven by the conversion of electrochemical energy into mechanical energy via the proton motive force. I am pretty sure you are smart enough to know that, Mung, so I am not sure what your point is. Is this a joke that is going over my head?sagebrush gardener_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

AMEM to burden of proof. Its the burden to show complexity could create itself OR is not the result of intelligent intent. It really is a complex universe and people(tailless primates for some) are called genesis for figuring out< if they did accurately, one tiny, tiny, part of this complexity. Its complex. The burden of proof is oin those saying it arose from chance encounters. Its on those saying its not intelligently conceived. To see fish become fishermen is also a burden of proof for advocates of it. Not the the opposition. Darwin was wrong about this point of who must prove whatRobert Byers_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Rvb8 How is saying that luck and chance did it, more intellectually fulfilling?Andre_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

john- 'How did the code get there?' I don't know. No one knows. But what I do know is that the theories being proposed are infinately more substantial, plausible, and intellectually fulfilling, and satisfying than saying, 'the Designer did it.' BA: Luke 10:27. Hmmmm, an odd contribution to an OOL, or Origins Of Complex Self Replicating molecules discussion. How is this on topic? We have a periodic table of elements, we know the early universe was a Hydrogen universe, gravity brought these atoms together, stars burst forth, and in their unbelievably high pressure and temperature hearts, the elements of which we are made were formed; this much we know. Now some of these elements have shapes which bond easily with many other elements, and are incredibly stable, Carbon being our most obvious example; molecules formed. Any dissent yet? So why is your imagination so stymied that you can't make the leap to understanding that these molecules, present in more complex and organic amino acid molecules couldn't go the extra yard as it were?rvb8_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @19 Regarding the association between bacteria flagellum and motors, here are few papers on that topic. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-612824 @1692 Diverse high-torque bacterial flagellar motors assemble wider stator rings using a conserved protein scaffold @1693 Molecular Architecture of the Bacterial Flagellar Motor in CellsDionisio_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

According to Wikipedia: An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Given a flagellum, there is nothing that converts anything to anything.Mung_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 11.
The bacterial flagellum is nothing like [a motor].
I said it was like a propeller, not a motor. Sev, if I felt compelled to set up straw men every time I addressed my opponent's argument, it would probably give me pause. That's just me -- ya know, committed to logic and evidence and all.
Whether this partial resemblance is sufficient to infer design is a moot point.
Here Sev channels Obi Wan Kenobi: 1. The question is whether intelligent agents have been demonstrated to be capable of assembling machinery like propeller assemblies, which are analogous in some respects to the flagellum assembly, which even Sev admits. 2. ID proponent makes the uncontroversial observation that they have, thus answering the question in the affirmative. 3. Sev/Obi Wan waves hand and says "the point is moot." Sev, if I had to try to use Jedi mind tricks in idiotic attempts to dismiss my opponents' arguments, because I could not defeat them with logic or evidence, I think I would change my position. Just sayin' As is often the case in these debates, what fascinates me the most is not Sev's lame and easily rebutted attempt to dissemble and deflect. The psychology is the really fascinating thing. I know Sev is smart enough to know that what he says is false. It is not a mistake. It is a lie. Why does he feel compelled to tell lies, especially lies that are easily exposed like this one? I have seen this phenomenon literally hundreds of times. I still have no idea why they do it. Barry Arrington_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

as the Sev's claim "Naturalism is the philosophical or metaphysical basis of science" Hmmm, that claim is, as is usual for claims from atheists, false. Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility.
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/
In fact, modern science was uniquely born out of, and is still dependent on, the Christian worldview:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray – August 14, 2014 Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature. The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/the_truth_about_science_and_religion.html The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism as our basis for practicing science then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination.
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy – June 2016 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
In fact, besides naturalism NOT being the basis of science, it would be hard to fathom a more anti-scientific worldview than atheistic naturalism. Even Darwinian evolution itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions. But where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it. In fact, Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, is replete with bad liberal theology. Which should not really be all that surprising since Darwin’s college degree was not in math but was in (bad liberal) theology:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
To this day, Darwinists are still dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of Darwinian claims:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Moreover, besides Christianity providing the proper foundation so as to practice modern science in the first place, Christianity also offers the correct solution for the much sought after 'theory of everything' so as to bring a semblance of closure to modern science:
(Centrality Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. The Great I Am - Phillips, Craig & Dean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_VR-zwp2KA
bornagain77_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

It’s argument by metaphor. Lying trolls are still liars. And trolls.Mung_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @ 9
I can absolutely prove to you that an intelligence of some kind was the source of the code.
Go ahead, I'm listening.Seversky_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

News @ 3
Materialism is not science. It is a chronic parasite on science, like fleas on a dog. Similar level of usefulness too.
No, materialism is not science. It seems to be regarded as an obsolete concept in philosophy. The current version is physicalism which is roughly equivalent to my a/mat v2.0. Naturalism is the philosophical or metaphysical basis of science which, in my interpretation, derives from the principle or Law of Identity. And if you think that understanding the role of insulin in glucose metabolism has not contributed to the management of diabetes then you and I have very different notions about what constitutes "usefulness".Seversky_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

The bacterial flagellum is nothing like that. Yes, at a molecular level, part of the structure of the flagellum resembles the stator/rotor arrangement of a human-designed electric motor but the ‘tail’ itself is nothing like a propeller. Whether this partial resemblance is sufficient to infer design is a moot point.
It's not even moot. It's fantasy. It's argument by metaphor. Obviously, time is money.Daniel King_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

And, once again, the burden of proof for a claim rests with the claimant if, and only if, the claimant is concerned with persuading an audience of the merits of the claim. If the claimant couldn't care less whether anyone believes the claim, there is no obligation to do anything.Seversky_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: Well done!!!Truth Will Set You Free_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 7
Seqenenre @ 5:
Isn’t it also true then that ID has the burden of proof to show that an Intelligent Designer is capable of making a flagellum?
Of course it is. And that burden has been sustained literally millions of times. Just drop by your nearest boat engine dealer and you will see for yourself. As has been explained countless times in these pages, the flagellum assembly is essentially an outboard propeller.
The typical outboard motor is a gasoline-powered, reciprocating, internal-combustion engine. Small amounts of gasoline are burnt inside a set of cylinders and the explosions drive small pistons. The pistons are connected to a crankshaft which converts the linear motion into rotary motion. The crankshaft is connected to a drive-shaft which conducts that rotary motion to a set of gears which turn that motion through 90 degrees to drive a propeller. The propeller is a component which uses the rotation of angled blades to literally 'screw' itself through the water. The bacterial flagellum is nothing like that. Yes, at a molecular level, part of the structure of the flagellum resembles the stator/rotor arrangement of a human-designed electric motor but the 'tail' itself is nothing like a propeller. Whether this partial resemblance is sufficient to infer design is a moot point.Seversky_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

re #5 "Isn’t it also true then that ID has the burden of proof to show that an Intelligent Designer is capable of making a flagellum?" Stop it! My palm and forehead can't take any more!SteRusJon_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

For the naturalists, physicalists and materialists commenting here at UD, here is a coded strand of DNA: CAAGTAGGGAGTTGATAAGGGATATAATCACAAGTAGTACAAGTATCAGGG... TCTAAAACTGGGAGTTGATAAGGGACAGCAAGATAA (A=adenine, G=guanine, T=thymine & C=cytosine) How did the code get there? I can absolutely prove to you that an intelligence of some kind was the source of the code.john_a_designer_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

FYI: What Origin-of-Life Researchers ForgetHeartlander_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre @ 5:
Isn’t it also true then that ID has the burden of proof to show that an Intelligent Designer is capable of making a flagellum?
Of course it is. And that burden has been sustained literally millions of times. Just drop by your nearest boat engine dealer and you will see for yourself. As has been explained countless times in these pages, the flagellum assembly is essentially an outboard propeller. The construction of outboard propellers by intelligent agents has been witnessed millions of times. Their ability to do so is an established fact. The ability of blind, unguided natural forces to do so has never been observed. Even a single such observation would destroy the ID paradigm. Barry Arrington_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

as to: "Isn’t it also true then that ID has the burden of proof to show that an Intelligent Designer is capable of making a flagellum?" I hold that there is no way to convince anyone who is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of their own mind that Intelligence is capable of creating anything. That atheists are willing to deny the reality of the one thing they can be most sure about existing, i.e. the existence of their own mind, just so as to, IMHO, avoid the Theistic implications clearly associated with admitting the reality of one's own mind, is a sure sign that you are not dealing with a person who weighs evidence honestly.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Verse:
Luke 10:27 He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
bornagain77_{July 15, 2016
July
07
Jul
15
15
2016
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply