Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can Someone Please Tell Me the Difference

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Between these following:

Scenario 1:

Galileo:  The earth orbits the sun

Galileo’s opponent:  Idiot.  Ptolemy established that the sun orbits the earth 1,500 years ago and that theory has served us well ever since.

Scenario 2:

ID proponent:  The best explanation for the existence of complex specified information in living things is “act of an intelligent agent.”

ID opponent:  IDiot.  Darwin proposed a chance/necessity mechanism to explain everything about all aspects of living things 150 years ago, and that theory has served us well ever since.

The only difference I can see is that Galileo’s opponent seems to have a better argument, because the theory he was defending had been around 10 times longer.

Comments
Maus: Darwin’s original notion made appeals to Lamarckian-esque heredity. So ‘falsified empirically on a key tenet and rewritten wholly’ now counts as surviving criticism, empirical testing, and the notion that Darwinism is a subset of Neo-Darwinism precisely because is isn’t. You seem to be confused regarding either Lamarckism, Darwinism or both theories. While he wasn't aware of the details as DNA had yet to be discovered, Darwin suggested an error correcting mechanism, based on variation and selection, was at work. This is not the same as Lamarck's conception of "use and disuse", which does not address the issue of how the knowledge to actually build biological adaptations was created. The fundamental error in Lamarckianism is that it assumes new knowledge is somehow already present in experience or can be derived mechanically from it. But Darwin proposed that new knowledge must first be conjectured then tested. Random mutations occur first (without taking into account the specific problem to be solved) then natural selection discards gene variants that are less capable of causing themselves to be passed on in future generations. Furthermore, I said that Darwinism has expanded to explain more phenomena in the form of Neo-Darwinism, not that Neo-Darwinism is a strict "subset" of Darwinism. This is in regards to what appears to be assumptions that theories should not become more accurate or expand to explain more phenomena. Nor are predictions of scientific theories prophecy that can be evaluated in isolation from the underlying explanation they are based on. Maus: If no theory can be justified as true then ‘critical discussion’ cannot produce a ‘better explanation’. It can only, and properly, weed out theories that are inconsistent. That is, self-contradictory. How, exactly, is it self-contradictory? Please be specific? As for the rest of your comment, please see the link I posted in response to Joe's comment.critical rationalist
August 21, 2012
August
08
Aug
21
21
2012
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
critical rationalist- do you understand what "equivocation" means? Do you realize that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution? Do you realize that the fixity of species is a strawman?Joe
August 21, 2012
August
08
Aug
21
21
2012
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
CR: Not only has Darwinism withstood over 150 years of significant criticism, … Joe: Not by any standards of a critical rationalist. Joe, are you familiar with Popper's views on Evolution? A summary can be found here: What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?critical rationalist
August 21, 2012
August
08
Aug
21
21
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Not only has Darwinism withstood over 150 years of significant criticism, but it has expanded to explain more phenomena in the form of Neo-Darwinism.
Darwin's original notion made appeals to Lamarckian-esque heredity. So 'falsified empirically on a key tenet and rewritten wholly' now counts as surviving criticism, empirical testing, and the notion that Darwinism is a subset of Neo-Darwinism precisely because is isn't. Which is fine and all, since if you can answer for this then you can answer for Russel's Paradox, rewrite logic and mathematics, receive a Nobel Prize and undying fame as a nerd starlet. Or you haven't thought about what you're saying. But that's not nearly as bad as this self-contradictory sentence:
While no particular theory can be positively justified as being true, some theories will present better explanations for observations when exposed to significant critical discussion and empirical testing.
If no theory can be justified as true then 'critical discussion' cannot produce a 'better explanation'. It can only, and properly, weed out theories that are inconsistent. That is, self-contradictory. But the central tenet of Natural Selection is put forward as 'if the animal changes then it was natural selection, and if the animal doesn't change then it is natural selection'. Now I don't know how boned up you are on logic. But if one things entails the disjunction of some consequence and the contradiction of that consequence then it is simply a display of the Ex Falso Quodlibet. Now the Ex Falso is considered valid as a rule of inference in Classical Logic. But it is also considered impossible for it to be sound. And in Classical Logic the only way to have a 'trivial' theory -- that is an inconsistent or contradictory one -- is to have directly contradictory premises/axioms or make use of the Ex Falso. This is a really low standard to have to meet and Natural Selection as presented fails it. Such that for your 'survives criticism' the theory can only survive criticism if you pretend that none was levied. For it is necessarily inconsistent as a logical matter. But the other terrible thing about the Ex Falso is that it's converse entails everything. That is, there is nothing that can possibly disconfirm of falsify it. So there is likewise no possibility that it can be a valid scientific theory unless you start making lewd advances on the corpse of Positivism. Despite which you're still stuck with the problem that if everything is taken as a consequence then everything is confirmative of the theory. That's a departure from critical thinking so thorough that only the most in-the-sink Jonestown cult members can pull it off. And Tom Cruise.Maus
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Not only has Darwinism withstood over 150 years of significant criticism, ... Not by any standards of a critical rationalist.
And it’s a good explanation because it consists of a long chain of independent, hard to vary explanations.
More like And it’s a good explanation because it consists of a long chain of independent explanations that are impossible to verify and impossible to test.Joe
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
BA: OK, let’s examine this. You say that the proper form of the argument is “Darwinism has withstood over 150 years of criticism.” CR, that’s not an argument. That’s one premise. There is no “therefore . . .” Is there a particular reason you ignored the rest of the paragraph? Again, I wrote… CR: The argument is (or should be in the case of those who use it incorrectly) that Darwinism has withstood over 150 years of criticism. We make progress by conjecturing theories, then testing those theories via observations. Theories found to be in error are either modified in a non-ad hoc fashion or replaced by theories that provide a better explanation of the same observations.. While no particular theory can be positively justified as being true, some theories will present better explanations for observations when exposed to significant critical discussion and empirical testing. And, the higher the informational content of a theory, the more ways it can turn out to be wrong when criticized. This is in contrast to merely pointing out theory X conflicts with trusted authority Z, which represents justificationsm, rather than rational criticism. Not only has Darwinism withstood over 150 years of significant criticism, but it has expanded to explain more phenomena in the form of Neo-Darwinism. And it's a good explanation because it consists of a long chain of independent, hard to vary explanations. Furthermore, no other theory has been conjectured which provides a better explanation for the same observations. As such, Neo-Darwinism represents significant progress towards explaining the origin of biological adaptations. BA: *Surely you will not try to suggest that no one criticized Ptolemy for over 1,500 years. Surely, you're not trying to suggest science hasn't made significant progress in how theories are criticized (or initially formed) since Ptolemy's time? If one lacks the knowledge of how to criticize explanations, then bad explanations will remain. If one cannot recognize a particular assumption is an idea that is subject to criticism, then the errors it contains will not be discarded because it will not be criticized. Again, we make progress by criticizing ideas and discarding the errors they contain. For example, the problem with Geocentrism is that it didn't actually solve the problem of explaining planetary motions. Specifically, in Galileo's time, It did not explain planetary motions without first having to introduce the complications of the heliocentric system. If one were asked why a planetary conjunction occurred on a particular date or why a planet backtracked across the sky in a particularly shaped loop, the answer would always be "that's how it would have looked if the heliocentric theory was true". So, if we had known how to criticize theories we could have discarded Geocentrism as explanation for the motions of the planets without even bothering with empirical observations since it represented a bad explanation (a convoluted elaboration of Heliocentrism.)critical rationalist
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Well, I certainly need to be more accurate about who says what, UB; which makes my wise-cracks about your u/n all the more lamentable. I really am sorry. It's a fine line - to my mind, and so easy to overstep - between getting a grip of daft evolutionist when THEY overstep the mark, and being gratuitously rancorous and unChristian.Axel
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
A Gene writes: “One big difference between the scenarios is that positive evidence for heliocentrism accumulated . . . whereas the only evidence put forward ‘for’ ID is that evolution doesn’t explain something: there is no positive evidence for ID in the natural world.” AG, you are missing the point. The issue is not whether Galileo is right and ID proponents are wrong. The issue is whether appealing to the age of a theory makes it more or less true. Again, whether Darwinism is a valid theory or not is beside the point of the OP. The point of the OP is that if Darwinism is wrong, it does not matter how old it is. It is still wrong. And if Darwinism is true, it would be true if it were only proposed yesterday. The age of a theory is irrelevant to its truth or falsity.Barry Arrington
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Here is a somewhat serendipitous article that just came out:
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug 20, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, it was belief in an intelligent Creator that convinced the great pioneers, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Babbage and many others that science could be done. C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." The Nobel prizewinner Melvin Calvin traces the rise of modern science to the conviction "that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.",,, ,,,If the universe, as Krauss alleges, is ultimately the product of a purposeless quantum burp, then so are we and so are our minds. Thus Krauss, in a delightful irony, gives us good reason to doubt the reliability of our human cognitive faculties and, consequently, to doubt the validity of any concepts, beliefs or arguments that they produce, including those involved in the Higgs boson, atheism - and, of course, shenanigans. It is Krauss's atheism that is at war with his science - not God. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that the meaning of a system will not be found within the system. The meaning of the universe will be found where Newton and Clerk Maxwell found it: in God. So what can we say about the Higgs boson? Simply this: God created it, Higgs predicted it and Cern found it. We rightly celebrate the last two - what about the first? Clerk Maxwell's answer is above the door of the most famous physics laboratory in the world: the Cavendish in Cambridge: "The works of the Lord are great, sought out by those who have pleasure in them." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/
bornagain77
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Axel, perhaps you should stop attacking people in your comments until you find them. ;) - - - - - (I did not say the slightest disparaging remark about Newton, nor would I. On my bookshelf I have an excellent volume on Newton's Life, very competently written, autographed to me by the author)Upright BiPed
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
I don't know where I put them, UB! MagooAxel
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
It's not 'biomimetics'; its' tother way round. The creaturely subjects of the studies of biomimetics are actually reverse-engineered from the blueprints of random chance, chaos, etc, which so richly inform your minds. It just suddenly came to. You materialist guys are 'light-years' ahead of the game.Axel
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Axel, go find your glasses.Upright BiPed
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Imitate randomness in your behaviour, and see where it gets you. Upright Biped will be keeping an eye on you - just in case you're a budding Newton on the loose.Axel
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
'and it certainly was not a atheist, nor some group of atheists, nor some other religion(s), involved in overturning the geocentric model. Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a devout Lutheran, was the mathematician who mathematically verified Copernicus’s, a loyal Catholic, heliocentric model for the solar system. I think the key word for the atheist to ruminate on is, 'devout'. No doubt, Christians were in a substantial majority when those great scientists lived, but what is fascinating and awesome, is that they were what in current popular parlance would be described as 'religious nuts'; even the word, 'devout' scarcely conveys the depth of their passion of their Christian faith. Moreover, Newton lived in an age when the plausibility of the notion of alchemy was no more discounted, than that of the 'science' of phrenology or the insanity of neoliberal economics. Eventually, Newton went so far as to declare his contempt for mathematics. How can you not warm to such a character. More often than not, 'mad as a hatter' is just about the highest compliment you can pay someone in my book. In some connections, to be considered insane in an insane world is something to be aspired to with all one's might; and the converse, almost the mark of Cain. How ironical that someone calling himself Upright Biped, whose intelligence, in comparison with that of Newton, could scarcely merit more than that elementary pre-troglodytic username he has so prophetically chosen for himself, should heap scorn on Newton. He is not of course unique in that, in terms of his intelligence, he would not have been fit to lick Newton's boots, but, nevertheless, the image in relation to himself is conjured up very forcibly by the fatuity of his words; an image of him straining with all his might to lick Newton's boots, but held back by reins, by leading-strings of loopiness. 'One big difference between the scenarios is that positive evidence for heliocentrism accumulated (e.g. see this blog post), whereas the only evidence put forward “for” ID is that evolution doesn’t explain something: there is no positive evidence for ID in the natural world.' Actually A Gene, I cannot but be struck by the extraordinary subtlety of your mind and those of your materialist confreres. I think this ID lot have got the boot on the wrong foot: the term shouldn't be 'biomimetics'; it should be 'randomimetics'. Why laud the monkey, instead of the organ-grinder. 'Invoke the butcher, not his block!' is what I say.Axel
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
A Gene states:
One big difference between the scenarios is that positive evidence for heliocentrism accumulated
Actually, there is a striking parallel between the fall of geocentrism and the fall of evolution. It is fairly well known that geocentrism went through a very long slow fall as more elaborate, and more elaborate, 'epicycles' were added onto the geocentric theory to accommodate anomalies in known facts. In fact, Imre Lakatos, after much analysis, concluded that the fabrication of additional theories to accommodate known facts is the surest way (surest demarcation criteria) to know that one is dealing with a 'pseudo-science', dealing with a 'degenerating scientific theory':
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos – audio lecture http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3
Imre Lakatos also stated:
Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
And much like the long slow fall of geocentrism, many 'anomalies' against Darwinism (on top of the many anomalies it started with), that have to be 'explained away' by additional theories, have accumulated as our knowledge has grown about the unfathomably complex inner workings of the cell. Even Darwinists themselves admit that their theory has suffered major renovations in order to fit what the evidence is now saying:
EMBO workshop focuses on “phenomena that are not part of the traditional narrative of molecular evolution … ” August 2012 Excerpt: It is impossible to deny that our ideas on evolution are shifting from the simple and rigid ‘random mutation–selective fixation’ scheme epitomized in the Modern Synthesis, to a much more complex, nuanced picture. Under the new view, the interplay between stochasticity and adaptive mechanisms is extensive and essential, both in the generation of variation and in the fixation of the changes. https://uncommondescent.com/evolutionary-biology/embo-workshop-focuses-on-phenomena-that-are-not-part-of-the-traditional-narrative-of-molecular-evolution/
There are even many researchers, researchers who believe in the general materialistic framework of evolution, who concede that the neo-Darwinism, as it was originally envisioned, is dead. James Shapiro and Eugene Koonin are two quick examples that come to mind.,,, As to your claim that Intelligent Design has no positive evidence going for it, well, to put it mildly, that accusation is simply false:
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html
bornagain77
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
A Gene,
…the only evidence put forward “for” ID is that evolution doesn’t explain something: there is no positive evidence for ID in the natural world.
Demonstrating what evolution cannot do is not the test standard created by IDist, that standard was set by Charles Darwin himself: VI. Difficulties of the Theory “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”. - - - - - - - - Now, what Darwin did was to propose the impossible as a test of his theory (one cannot prove that something didn’t happen), so such a test is not viable for the modern materialist ideologue who will never accept any amount of contrary evidence (effectively isolating the theory of disconfirmation). Such a test would have only been meaningful for the rational colleagues Darwin was speaking to in his day. In the meantime, IDist have shown a biosystem that could not have developed in incremental steps, and in the process have fulfilled one of their predictions.Upright BiPed
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
A Gene:
whereas the only evidence put forward “for” ID is that evolution doesn’t explain something.
Wrong again, as usual. For one ID is not anti-evolution. For another Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, ie parsimony, mandate that necessity and/ or chance be eliminated before any design inference is reached. And finally the design inference is based on positive criteria, whereas your position sez "anything but design no matter what the evidence says!"Joe
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
One big difference between the scenarios is that positive evidence for heliocentrism accumulated (e.g. see this blog post), whereas the only evidence put forward "for" ID is that evolution doesn't explain something: there is no positive evidence for ID in the natural world.A Gene
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
footnote to post 8 (Newton prophecy): https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-someone-please-tell-me-the-difference/#comment-430575 It may be very surprising for some to learn that the biblical ‘prophetic’ calender is more accurate than our modern day 'scientific' calender. The Gregorian calender uses a fairly complex system of leap days to keep accuracy with the sun, whereas, on a whole consideration, the prophetic calender uses a simpler system of leap months to keep accuracy to the sun. When these two systems are compared against each other, side by side, the prophetic calender equals the Gregorian in accuracy at first approximation, and on in-depth analysis for extremely long periods of time (even to the limits for how precisely we can measure time altogether) the prophetic calender exceeds the Gregorian calender in accuracy. i.e. it turns out, God's measure of time exceeds the best efforts of man to scientifically measure time accurately.,, But as a Christian why am I surprised about this? :)
Bible Prophecy Year of 360 Days Excerpt: Is the Biblical 'prophetic' calender more accurate than our modern calender? Surprisingly yes! Excerpt: The first series of articles will show the 360-day (Prophetic) calendar to be at least as simple and as accurate as is our modern (Gregorian) calendar. In the second part of our discussion we will demonstrate how that the 360-day calendar is perfectly exact (as far as our 'scientific' measurements will allow). http://www.360calendar.com/ Trust in God's Perfect Timing - photo http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s320x320/154716_433469916682215_100000576310394_1504581_1340154442_n.jpg
bornagain77
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
critcal rationalist: Thank you for your post. I don’t know what I expected when I put up this post. I am certain, however, that I did not expect someone to actually defend the “it’s an old theory; therefore it is more likely to be true” argument. OK, let’s examine this. You say that the proper form of the argument is “Darwinism has withstood over 150 years of criticism.” CR, that’s not an argument. That’s one premise. There is no “therefore . . .” Let me try to fill in the blank for you. I assume from the gist of your comment that you would say “Darwinism has withstood over 150 years of criticism. THEREFORE, it probably true.” I don’t see how that form of the argument is in substance different than the one I posited in the OP. Be that as it may, let’s substitute some words: “Ptolemy’s geocentric cosmology has withstood 1,500 years of criticism.* Therefore, it is probably true.” The conclusion does not follow from the premise for Ptolemy (after 1,500 years). Why should the conclusion follow from the premise for Darwin (after only 150 years)? CR writes: “Theories found to be in error are either modified in a non-ad hoc fashion or replaced by theories that provide a better explanation of the same observations.” Yes, that is the theory of theories. Practice is much different, as you probably know. History is full of theories supported by scientists long after their “dispose of by” date had passed. Moreover, Darwinism is a special case. It is the creation myth of materialist atheism. Therefore, its adherents defend Darwinian orthodoxy with an arrogantly rigid and hide bound obstinacy that would make a medieval churchman blush. Witness the antics of PZ Myers, the Torquemada of the 21st Century Darwinists, and "Darwinism has more evidence than gravity, the atomic theory of matter, and special relativity” Vincent Cassone, as displayed in other posts at UD in the last few days. *Surely you will not try to suggest that no one criticized Ptolemy for over 1,500 years.Barry Arrington
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
The argument is (or should be in the case of those who use it incorrectly) that Darwinism has withstood over 150 years of criticism. </blockquote? That's not an argument. That is pure nonsense.
Joe
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: I am not arguing for ID in the OP. I am arguing against a particularly irksome Darwinist debate tactic. Numerous times on these pages Darwinists have argued to the effect of “Darwinism has been around for 150 years now; it’s gotta be true.” The argument is (or should be in the case of those who use it incorrectly) that Darwinism has withstood over 150 years of criticism. We make progress by conjecturing theories, then testing those theories via observations. Theories found to be in error are either modified in a non-ad hoc fashion or replaced by theories that provide a better explanation of the same observations. Barry Arrington: Irony alert. In his comment Timothya accused me of erecting a strawman. You're correct in that it's a bad argument *as you presented it*. Nor would it come as a surprise that some people employ it without understanding it. However, this doesn't change the fact that valid forms of the argument do exist.critical rationalist
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Newton was a loony about some things, but he never let his “Christianity” get in the way of the conclusions he drew from the observations he made. That is a good lesson in my view.
Newton’s religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to whether or not his science was true or not. Or to put it differently, Newton’s three laws are either true or not true, irrespective of whether your particular god exists.
How would you distinguish this trait in a scientist/researcher of today?Upright BiPed
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Timothya writes: “Are you serious? Ptolemy “established” that the sun orbits the earth?” I am not sure what you mean by this. You seem to have missed the point of the OP. Let me spell it out. I am not arguing for ID in the OP. I am arguing against a particularly irksome Darwinist debate tactic. Numerous times on these pages Darwinists have argued to the effect of “Darwinism has been around for 150 years now; it’s gotta be true.” Darwinism may or may not be true. That is utterly beside the point I am making. The point I am making is that the fact Darwinism has been around for 150 years has absolutely no bearing on whether it is true. My point, Timothya, is that far older theories turned out to be spectacularly false. Timothya, writes: “They (the geocentrists) built a model that described the motions of near- and far-field celestial objects with remarkable accuracy. But, by sticking to a fundamental assumption (of geocentricity), they paid the price of an increasingly complicated mathematics.” Hmmmm. Let’s substitute some words: “They (the Darwinists) built a model that described a process that accounted for the diversity of life. But, by sticking to a fundamental assumption (that only chance and necessity can be considered as causal factors), they paid the price of an increasing understanding of the complexity of and information contained in the cell.” Timothya writes: “So far your argument seems to boil down to: (evolutionary explanation) plus (something supernatural) was also involved but we don’t know when or how or why.” Irony alert. In his comment Timothya accused me of erecting a strawman. I am not sure what he meant by this, because I was not describing any argument, much less caricaturing an argument. Be that as it may, Timothya either has not taken the time to study ID sufficiently so that he can describe it accurately or he is erecting a strawman caricature himself. I will let others judge which it is.Barry Arrington
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
correction: its just that you, starting from materialistic presuppositions CANNOT justify why you do so.bornagain77
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
tim you ask:
are you claiming that I have to be a Christian for me to believe that Newton’s Laws of Motion are true?
No I'm pointing out that you cannot justify why you, as a atheist/materialist, can hold anything to be true. I have no doubt that you believe them to be true, its just that you, starting from materialistic presuppositions justify why you do so.bornagain77
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
timothya:
Are you serious? Ptolemy “established” that the sun orbits the earth?
At the time, pretty much all the evidence was in favor of the geocentric model. From astronomynotes.com: "Some of the observations that convinced the Greeks that the Earth was not moving are: 1. The Earth is not part of the heavens. Today the Earth is known to be just one planet of eight (plus 5 dwarf planets at the time of writing) that orbit an average star in the outskirts of a large galaxy, but this idea gained acceptance only recently when telescopes extended our vision. 2. The celestial objects are bright points of light while the Earth is an immense, nonluminous sphere of mud and rock. Modern astronomers now know that the stars are objects like our Sun but very far away and the planets are just reflecting sunlight. 3. The Greeks saw little change in the heavens---the stars are the same night after night. In contrast to this, they saw the Earth as the home of birth, change, and destruction. They believed that the celestial bodies have an immutable regularity that is never achieved on the corruptible Earth. Today astronomers know that stars are born and eventually die (some quite spectacularly!)---the length of their lifetimes are much more than a human lifetime so they appear unchanging. Also, modern astronomers know that the stars do change positions with respect to each other over, but without a telescope, it takes hundreds of years to notice the slow changes. 4. Finally, our senses show that the Earth appears to be stationary! Air, clouds, birds, and other things unattached to the ground are not left behind as they would be if the Earth was moving. There should be a strong wind if the Earth were spinning as suggested by some radicals. There is no strong wind. If the Earth were moving, then anyone jumping from a high point would hit the Earth far behind from the point where the leap began. Furthermore, they knew that things can be flung off an object that is spinning rapidly. The observation that rocks, trees, and people are not hurled off the Earth proved to them that the Earth was not moving. Today we have the understanding of inertia and forces that explains why this does not happen even though the Earth is spinning and orbiting the Sun. That understanding, though, developed about 2000 years after Plato." It's not like the astronomers at the time were accepting the geocentric model on blind faith. Of course, now we know they were wrong, but at the time this wasn't at all clear.Genomicus
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Bjornagain: are you claiming that I have to be a Christian for me to believe that Newton's Laws of Motion are true?timothya
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Newton’s religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to whether or not his science was true or not.
Actually tim, as usual, you are completely wrong again (at least you are consistent in being wrong!):
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site Excerpt: 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://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
Even Albert Einstein, though he certainly was not considered particularly religious, reflects how the prevailing Judeo-Chriatian worldview of European culture influenced his overall thinking about science in this following quote:
"I want to know how God created this world .. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert Einstein - Quoted in Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, (New York, Morrow, 1988), 177.
Einstein further commented on the 'miracle' of finding such order, instead of chaos, here:
"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands." Albert Einstein - Goldman - Letters to Solovine p 131.
This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
further note:
"Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110227a
bornagain77
August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply