Darwinism Intelligent Design

Dembski: Comment of the week, comments from News interspersed

Spread the love

From Truth Will Set You Free (18) in response to Pindi (16)

Pindi @ 16: Saying that the theory of Darwinian evolution is in free fall has nothing to do with the state of ID, or whether William Dembski is breaking ranks from the ID movement.

News: Dembski isn’t “breaking ranks from the ID movement” and has never said he was. He just wanted to do something with his life for a while other than scrap with tax- or Templeton-funded Darwin trolls. You bought ‘em, you pay for ‘em.

Darwinian evolution is in free fall because it is not supported by empirical science. Lots of speculation and philosophizing, but no empirical evidence to prove that natural selection working on random, unguided processes is capable of speciation, let alone abiogenesis. Modern science is revealing not only that there is no evidence for such things, but that it is highly unlikely that such things could happen by Darwinian evolution. Hence the free fall.

News: Darwinian evolution is largely a cultural enterprise, as Tom Wolfe has recently pointed out. It doesn’t need to be true—or even make sense—as long as somBimboat can front it earnestly on Taxpayer TV.

Thanks in large part to leaders of the ID movement, including William Dembski, people are no longer afraid to challenge atheists on this issue. If nothing else, the ID movement has exposed the glaring flaws in Darwin’s theory. That alone is a major accomplishment given the entrenched and untouchable status the theory has held in academia for many years.

News: That part was what first got me (O’Leary for News ) involved. Having been alerted by a poli sci prof to the political craziness of Darwinism (approx 1996), I had to get used to

1) the sickening, hagiographic media releases from researchers who breathlessly announced that they were defending the Ol’ Brit Toff

2) the cringeworthy cowardice of Christian BigThink media who decided to switch gears under pressure and fawn all over the Toff’s followers, instead of giving them a boot where they deserve it.

3) really insane stuff like wanting to put Darwin (a classic racistalongside Lincoln in the U.S. as an American liberation hero (sponsored by the last people you would expect to do so—except that they may not have done any homework at all and were egged on in this venture by Darwinbots).

Also, Stephen Meyer, Jay Richards, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Ann Gauger, Jonathan Wells, and many others are more than capable of carrying the torch for ID, as is Douglas Axe, whose recent book, Undeniable, has become an instant classic in the ID genre, garnering much praise, even from scientists.

News: Probably especially from scientists.

By the way, there are other scientists, doctorates, professors, etc. who challenge the theory of Darwinian evolution but not under the banner of ID. Hugh Ross, James Tour, Dave Berlinski, and many others fall into that group.

News:  A lot of people feel better when they crawl out from under a load of horseshit. You don’t have to be a scientist.

Regarding your point “not a lot of science going on here” (at uncommondescent.com), surely you know that everyone here understands and appreciates the scientific method. You should not expect to see “science going on here,” but you should expect to see a robust discussion about science going on here. Which is exactly what you find.

News:  Uncommon Descent is a Colorado-based not-for-profit that provides independent news of interest to people who follow the intelligent design controversy. As your principal newswriter, I would be happy to think that, now that the Royal Society is taking these issues on, there is some hope that a bigger shovel than we can rent will be applied to the pile.

See also: What to expect from the Royal Society’s public evolution summit November 7-9

Follow UD News at Twitter!

38 Replies to “Dembski: Comment of the week, comments from News interspersed

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “By the way, there are other scientists, doctorates, professors, etc. who challenge the theory of Darwinian evolution but not under the banner of ID. Hugh Ross, James Tour, Dave Berlinski, and many others fall into that group.”

    and let’s not forget to give Shapiro’s group of distinguished scientists at “The Third Way” a nod

    Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
    List of people who are members of The Third Way
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

  2. 2
    Marfin says:

    My favourite anti Darwinian is Ernst Boris Chain,
    a brilliant,brilliant scientist who along with Howard Florey has saved tens if not hundreds of millions of lives
    with there work on penicillin.
    Now Chain called Darwinism a fairy tale based on no evidence, how can anyone dismiss this comment from such a man and accept Dawkins, Coyne,Miller et al when you consider his accomplishments compared to theirs and the vested interest they have in promoting evolution.

  3. 3
    rvb8 says:

    News,
    this language and these targets are regrettably used by you, and your alter-ego, O’leary, too often!

    “the Ol’ Brit Toff”; Really? If you have a problem with the British aristocracy (and being from NZ, believe me, I do), then say so. This absurd hidden agenda of attacking the institution while hiding behind the individual is weird.

    You mention Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Gauger, Wells, ‘and many others’. Please, who are these, ‘many othrs’? I only hear these names parroted continuously, the ‘many others’ remain a mystery.

    Your attack on ‘Big Media’ is merely an attack on something you envy, that is plain, and not pretty to behold in any writer. This resentful predjudice is easy to detect.

    You say Lincoln should not be associated with Darwin, as one of these persons is incomparibly greater than the other. I agree!

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    Thanks for the great links, bornagain77.

    My own rejection of Darwinism in college was precisely the magical quality of a theory imbued with God-like qualities.

    What could at most provide fine tuning was credited with miracle after miracle! The Third Way finally acknowledges the glaring shortfalls in a quaint Victorian fantasy that’s an anachronism in the modern world, a theoretical zombie that should have been buried by the scientific community a half century ago!

    Marfin,
    What amazes me this the quasi-religious dogmatism of Darwinism that’s promoted by precisely those people who are not up to the practical knowledge and capabilities of James Tour and others.

    I didn’t know about Ernst Boris Chain—thanks for the tip!

    Rvb8,
    Why don’t you take your pointless ad hominem attacks and usual baseless assertions elsewhere. And you still haven’t provided any rational basis for why you consider certain the consumption of some animal protein immoral, even after being asked multiple times. Is it immoral for a leopard to be a historical predator of Homo sapiens?

    -Q

  5. 5
    rvb8 says:

    I can’t take my ‘baseless’ assertions elsewhere, and simultaneously answer your ludicrous question now can I?

    My writing is not ad hominem, it is critical of the style of a poor writer. News often uses ‘the ol’ Brit toff’ when describing Darwin. It is tedious and embarassing to herself. She often brings up the supposed superiority of the great emancipator, with that of the forgettable hack Darwin, it’s a rhetorical device that is tired and repititious; has she new material?

    I’ll try to answer your obscure question, although I’m not sure what you mean. I assume you mean that you don’t eat babies because they are humans made in the image of God and therefore off limits as a source of protein. I further assume you argue that I, as an atheist do not have this God ordained restraint and can therefore tuck into baby pie.

    No thank you. My common decency as a human being restrains me, and further I would actively try to prevent those that look to unwanted children as a cheap alternative to turkey at Christmas.

    Now you will return and say I have no moral basis to follow my imposed restraint. It gets into philosophy of life, and what it is to be a human here, and I am unqualified to pursue that messy vague area. You appear quite capable of wasting litres of ink on that pointless avenue of inquiry.

  6. 6
    Marfin says:

    rvb8- Why do you continue to bother posting on this site,
    I have asked you two questions that you have completely refused to engage with,so come on you may be easily lead but you don`t seem to be stupid , so when a question is asked of you why don`t you engage with it , why don`t you at least attempt to give your understanding of it.
    At least that way through a reasoned discussion you may reach a better understanding on the subject at hand , and at least you could honestly say you disagree instead of blindly accepting the company line.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8: you prefer to be choked in the shallow waters before you get to deep?

    Edie Brickell & New Bohemians – What I Am
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDl3bdE3YQA

    “What I Am”
    I’m not aware of too many things
    I know what I know, if you know what I mean
    Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
    Religion is the smile on a dog
    I’m not aware of too many things
    I know what I know, if you know what I mean, d-doo yeah

    Choke me in the shallow waters
    Before I get too deep ,,,

  8. 8
    REW says:

    How could you forget Casey Luskin?? He was probably the most prolific and diverse writer on ID. He was my favorite….and I’m anti-ID!

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    rvb8

    My common decency as a human being restrains me … [but regarding] what it is to be a human here … I am unqualified to pursue that messy vague area.

    Is it fair to say that you don’t know why you’re restrained, you’re unqualified to understand it, and the answer is vague?

    If so, that being a response to the question on why you wouldn’t eat babies, can you understand why many people find atheism frightening?

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Denton, Axe, Gonzalez, Lönnig, Giertych, Sanford, Marks … Dissent From Darwin, Bio-Complexity journal

  11. 11

    rvb8 (everywhere): You’re being stupid again…creature.

  12. 12

    REW @ 8: Good point. Casey Luskin is a true champion in the ID movement.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Casey Luskin,, was probably the most prolific and diverse writer on ID.”

    Agreed. I certainly learned quite a bit from Casey during his years at Discovery.

    Discovery Institute
    Article Database – Search Results – Casey Luskin –
    1442 matching record(s)
    http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....Posts=true

    Here is a broad outline of the main scientific points that he, after years of studying the issue in detail, prosecuted against Darwinism shortly before his departure from DI:

    The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution – Casey Luskin – 2015
    Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91101.html
    Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91111.html
    Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91121.html
    Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91131.html
    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html
    Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91151.html
    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91161.html
    Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91171.html

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91181.html
    Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91191.html

    And his series exposing the gaping holes in the fossil record for human evolution was quite educational also. In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin, speaking at the 2014 Science and Human Origins conference, discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from some ape-like precursor.

    2014 – podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 1
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....s-tell-us/
    podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 2
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-2/
    podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 3
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-3/
    podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 4
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-4/

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    And then there was his series exposing the fraudulent nature in which Darwinists tried to downplay the devastating ENCODE results. i.e. The devastating finding of widespread functionality across the entire genome which demolished the junk DNA argument of Darwinists. (That is demolished it for practically everyone save for Darwinian diehards who will never accept any finding that directly contradicts their theory):

    The ENCODE Embroilment, – part 3
    Excerpt: Very Little DNA Is “Conserved”
    After raising the C-value paradox, ENCODE critics often follow with a logical argument. “Only about 10 percent of our DNA is ‘conserved,’ or has a similar sequence, compared to the genomes of other mammals,” they point out. “This means that only about 10 percent of our genome is under selection to preserve the DNA sequence.” They then reason: “Since natural selection is the only force that creates and preserves functional elements in our genome, it’s impossible that more than about 10 percent of our genome is functional.”
    This argument was on display in a 2014 paper claiming that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional because only that percentage of our genome is “conserved” between humans and other mammals like mice and pandas.7 But there’s a glaring problem with this thinking: it assumes that all DNA sequences are the result of undirected mutation and selection to begin with, and that biological function only comes from natural selection. Throw out the assumption of an evolutionary origin of species and there’s no reason to believe that only conserved DNA can be functional. After all, an intelligent agent could independently design functional genetic elements with widely divergent DNA sequences in the genomes of different species—no “conservation” required.
    Only if we assume that strictly unguided evolutionary mechanisms produced our genome can we infer that such a small fraction of our genome is functional. Under this logic, when evolutionists cite the preponderance of junk DNA as evidence for evolution, they engage in circular reasoning.
    Junk proponents seem blind to these flaws. A co-author of the 8.2-percent paper boasted, “our approach is largely free from assumptions or hypotheses.”8 Apparently he was forgetting about assumptions and hypotheses like evolution.
    Even worse, ENCODE critic Dan Graur called it “‘idiotic’ to suggest that a part of the genome could be functional if it didn’t respond to pressure from natural selection.”9 He further charges that “what ENCODE researchers did not take into account . . . is that everything is shaped by evolution.”10 In Graur’s Darwinian world, the possibility that some important functional genetic element arose from a cause other than natural selection is simply inconceivable….
    In any case, ENCODE provides a nice empirical test of the evolutionary assumption that only conserved DNA can be functional: It finds evidence of mass functionality in “non-conserved” (i.e., unique) DNA sequences. As one lead ENCODE researcher explains: “Most elements defined by biochemical signatures lacked strong evolutionary conservation.”12 Other ENCODE defenders argue that the research shows that “absence of conservation cannot be interpreted as evidence for the lack of function.”13 –
    They conclude that ENCODE’s empirical evidence for functionality is the ultimate test: “differential expression (including extensive alternative splicing) of RNAs is a far more accurate guide to the functional content of the human genome than logically circular assessments of sequence conservation.”21 Bottom line: good evidence trumps bad theory.,,,
    A Great Divorce
    Critics like Dan Graur charge that ENCODE is guilty of “divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context”22—and that’s exactly right. ENCODE’s empirically based finding that the vast majority of our genome is functional has withstood theoretical, evolution-based objections from critics. Maybe a divorce from evolutionary thinking is exactly what we need to liberate biology from bad evolutionary assumptions and explain what’s happening inside our cells.,,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....rt-III.php

    But, as the 1442 matching record(s) in the Discovery Institute Article Database indicate, there is much, much, more to what Casey Luskin covered and wrote about during his tenure at ID than the few points I listed. He is definitely missed.

  15. 15

    bornagain77 @ 14: Well done!

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    Thomas Nagel has given Darwin the up yours too….

    Darwinian evolution is the law of higgledy-piggledy….

    P.S Casey is one of the nicest people you will ever meet always responded to my e-mails.

  17. 17
    rvb8 says:

    To BA77, and those who view me as thick.

    I’m not shallow, I simply like things to be explained. The Sokal affair is a fair approxiamation of how I view many posters here. Loads of archaic (Biblical) language, with abstract and obtuse opinion, tangled with vague and obscure referrances, mingled with conjecture, put forth as fact. No!

    You have to do better if you are to attain the badge of ligitimate science. I don’t apologise for my lack of philisophical credentials, in fact judging by the vagueness of so many posts and opinions here, I view that lack as a positive boon.

    Start posting on the advances made by ID, and I will contribute more constructively; promise!

  18. 18
    Vy says:

    To BA77, and those who view me as thick.

    Hmm, view you as “thick”. You’re sure that’s the right word?

    I’m not shallow, I simply like things to be explained.

    And yet you’re incapable of offering explanations when asked.

    The Sokal affair is a fair approxiamation of how I view many posters here. Loads of archaic (Biblical) language, with abstract and obtuse opinion, tangled with vague and obscure referrances, mingled with conjecture, put forth as fact. No!

    Aside from the inane reference to the Bible, this is pretty much you.

  19. 19
    rvb8 says:

    It’s not an ‘inane’ thing to say that Kairos, BA and others regularly quote the KJV Bible, and often do so as supporting evidence for a given assertion or position.

    The Sokal affair was both funny and accurate. I deny categorically that my writing in any way resembles that mish-mash of New Age gibberish.

  20. 20
    groovamos says:

    rvb: Start posting on the advances made by ID, and I will contribute more constructively; promise:

    ‘scuse me but this is really rich. The goal of many people on here, me included, is the take down of the creation story of you guys. Progress is made when people like me can ridicule the idea of any practical application of Darwinian macroevolution and people like you have no answer. And the young people watching get in on the fun. No physician has ever demonstrated the utility of Darwinian macroevolution. Progress has been made seeing a 20 year old prediction by the ID project fulfilled, the virtual abandonment of the ‘junk DNA’ doctrine.

    And finally progress has been demonstrated by the court tested and affirmed academic freedom legislation in Louisiana Tennessee, and other states, modeled on DI boilerplate. Quite good progress would you agree?

  21. 21
    rvb8 says:

    ‘and other states’? Feel free to name them, I believe right now Jonathan Witt is weighing in on Texas revisions to introducing, ‘strengths and weaknesses’ language to the Texas science standards. As if this smoke screen language fools any one, consider one of the main supporters of this ‘balanced’ approach, a Mr Raymond Bolin of, Probe Ministries. Heh:)

    Currently this language and similar language is indeed seen in the science standards of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas. Considering all the other court adventures of ID and creationism including but not limited to, Edwards v. Aguillard 1987, Kitzmiller 2005, Bishop v. Aronod 1991, Bishop shockingly won, but then rationality triumphed and he lost on appeal, Peloza v. Capistrano 1994, Peloza lost etc etc.

    My advice, don’t take your ideas to court, your witnesses generally fair poorly, so much so that Dembski after crowing about a chance to face the enemy in court, actually failed to show up at the appointed hour.

  22. 22
    Andre says:

    RVB

    So you are opposed to learning all sides of a story? If that is the case you are thick. The matarialist and the theist have two opposing stories they can’t both be right. One is true and one is false, You can easily demonstrate design is false by presenting us with a molecular machine that assembled itself from nothing do that and you win.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, In fact, I seldom (as in hardly ever) cite KJV; which instantly exposes your lack of familiarity with the text, not to mention the difference between Elizabethan era English and today’s language . . . which would be strange indeed for an arts educated person, and esp. for a lawyer or the like. Every time I do quote Scripture (which BTW is the most commonly available, widely studied corpus of classical literature), it is for cause and in an appropriate context where it is material, e.g. cf here for a current case in point where I build on the Wisdom [= philosophical] Lit, including on the hatred of hardened fools for soundly warranted knowledge; as part of remarks on the evident and shocking collapse of leadership in our civilisation now on massive display. Meanwhile, you seem to have been conspicuously absent on the now 10 month long on and off technically focussed discussion on whether the cosmos could have or did have an infinite temporal past, popping a cosmos out of the non-being of a non-existent hat having fallen by the wayside. (I believe this discussion has probably been the focal one at UD for this year; in case you missed the point, it is pivotal for assessing cosmological models of origin and debates concerning the implication of fine tuning of our observed cosmos — and per fair comment, the predominant weight of the argument is on the side that we had a finite past; thus, a beginning; which points to a begin-NER.) I suggest to you that you and others of like ilk would be well advised to ponder here on. And, for worldview grounding, here on. KF

  24. 24
    rvb8 says:

    Making the claim (and let’s be fair, it is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim), that something is Irreducibly Complex, brings with it the unstated effect of actually retarding further investigation.

    You assume the argument runs like this; the theists believe these complex cells and organelles are the Designers handiwork, the scientists believe it is just easier to assume it is not. As that beyond nature reasoning leads a scientist nowhere. If a scientist actually accepted ID then that scientist believes at some reduced structure I must realise the handiwork of the designer and desist in further research; this is a scientist who does not deserve the title, scientist.

    What if these irreducibly complex engines are made up of further smaller workable machines; mitochondria springs to mind. Do we stop here? Could we then maybe investigate the structure of that, and that lo-and-behold, it too is made of complex molecules that naturally gravitate to one another. What about now, do we stop here?

    ID has stopped already, at the flagellum, or even the bigger cell itself. This to me and scientists, and investigators, laboratories, and universities evrywhere is where their investigative appetite is whetted and begins in earnest.

    There is complex research going on in OOL and it won’t stop. You can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum a merry tune if you like; I don’t.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8, spoiler alert, ‘materialism of the gaps’, i.e. the blind faith of Atheistic materialists that researchers will find a materialistic answer to that enigma someday, is the real science stopper, not ID.

    Although Theists are often accused of making ‘God of the Gaps’ style arguments, the fact of the matter is that, as science has progressed, it is the Atheist himself who has had to retreat further and further into ‘Materialism/Naturalism of Gaps’ style arguments. i.e. into “Science will figure a materialistic answer out to that mystery some day” style argument.

    Meanderings on Atheism, Darwinism, and Science (Atheism of the Gaps) – Oct. 1, 2016
    http://religiopoliticaltalk.co.....d-science/

    Methodological naturalism, the axiom of Materialism as it is applied to modern science, i.e. only materialistic/naturalistic answers are ever allowed, is the primary method of science taught in American universities today. Yet, Materialism/Naturalism is not itself a finding of modern science but is merely a unproven philosophy that is a-priorily imposed onto science. A completely unproven philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated the universe and everything in it, including ourselves.
    Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created this universe and everything in it, including ourselves, i.e. Theism holds that God created us in His image.
    This dogmatic imposition of the philosophy of materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, onto modern science is especially interesting since materialism had little to nothing to with the founding of modern science, but instead modern science was born out of the medieval Christian cultures of Europe by men who were by and large devoutly Christian in their beliefs. Specifically, they believed the universe to be rational and that they had minds capable of grasping that rationality.
    Moreover science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer turns out to be a materialistic one or not. Ironically, since truth itself is a transcendent entity which is not reducible to a purely material/natural explanation then Methodological Naturalism, by default, actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!
    Imposing materialistic answers onto the scientific method beforehand, methodological naturalism, is especially problematic in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, “Did God create the universe and us or did blind material processes create the universe and us?” When we realize that this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then it is readily apparent that we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation.
    When looking at the evidence from modern science from this angle then we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss.
    This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of evidence we will find.
    These contradictory predictions, and the evidence that is now found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true.

    Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism – a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video
    https://youtu.be/QQ9iyCmPmz8

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that 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. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life 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. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4

    That Christianity should provide an empirically backed solution to the much sought out “Theory of Everything”, i.e. a primary reason for why the universe exists, should not really be all that surprising since, number 1, modern science was born out of the Christian worldview,

    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...../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.

    and, number 2, the belief that there should even be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. a mathematical theory of everything), does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions (S. Fuller),

    A Mathematical theory of everything simply does not follow from the math
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pSSfbR2QFZ5JAJTOsrEXQDqkJ_6zPTvYNGwcI4YDvRY/edit

    and, number 3, Christianity ‘predicts’ that “in him all things were created”

    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.

    Of supplemental note:

    Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every discipline within 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/.....god-exist/

    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 understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy
    Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
    It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be.
    Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity!
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8:

    Irreducible complexity is a commonplace of systems, and it will be no surprise to see them in systems that host a von Neumann self replicating facility (a higher class of machine than we have hitherto been able to actually implement, but can analyse) and are effected with C-chemistry polymer technology.

    The key issue is that there is a core cluster of interacting parts, all of which are necessary to correct function. Such that, removal of any of these causally necessary factors breaks function.

    For common, simple instance a fire requires heat, oxidiser, fuel and uninterfered with combustion chain reaction. Fires are fought, precisely by knocking out one or more necessary conditions. And, in genetic research, knockout studies are in fact premised on breaking functions by removal of key components. Which has for instance been amply demonstrated in the lab by Minnich in connexion with the iconic bacterial flagellum.

    Your insinuation that irreducible complexity is a dubious suggestion and is to be held suspect on promissory note that some alternative will be found is ill-founded. Likewise, the commonplace suggestion of co-optation and “simple” modification runs into Menuge’s five critical conditions:

    For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

    C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

    C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

    C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

    C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

    C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

    ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

    When it comes to bodyplan level transformation of life forms, IC emerges at both micro and systems level. This actually starts with the first cell based life form, and the challenge has never been soundly answered on empirical observational evidence.

    IC is abundantly present in systems and on a base of billions of observed examples, is only seen to be caused by intelligent design. Per Newton’s vera causa principle we are warranted to insist that explanations be on actually observed true causes, locking out ideological impositions such as so-called methodological naturalism which tends to lend false strength to what vails the vera causa test.

    KF

  27. 27

    bornagain77 @ 25 said: “rvb8, spoiler alert, ‘materialism of the gaps’, i.e. the blind faith of Atheistic materialists that researchers will find a materialistic answer to that enigma someday, is the real science stopper, not ID.”

    You continue to do great work, bornagain77. Rvb8 is searching for truth (even if only subconsciously) and you keep delivering what he needs. Well done!

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8,

    While we are at it, let me speak to functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I for short], and cosmological fine tuning, in brief. As, you seem to be guided by hit pieces on ID, and do not have an understanding that rises above strawman caricature.

    FSCO/I is as common as the text of your comments in this thread. That is, function based on specific, complex organisation of elements, which is informational in nature. That is, a 3-d organisation can be broken up into a string of y/n elements in a description language, much as autocad works; the first person to talk in these terms is Orgel, in a 1973 book that introduced the concept of complex specified information. Once this is done, it is easy to see that when this bit string exceeds 500 – 1,000 bits, the 10^57 to 10^80 atoms of our solar system or the observed cosmos rearranging at fast chem rxn rates [~ 10^12 – 15/s], cannot sample more than a negligibly small fraction of the configuration space of possible bit arrangements. Consequently we see the pattern of deeply isolated islands of function in such unsearcheably large config spaces, rendering it maximally implausible that any blind search mechanism will find such an island.

    Where, if we then propose golden searches that can circumvent this, we face the search for a golden search problem (S4GS). For, a search is in effect a sample of subsets of the config space. That is the set of possible searches is comparable to the set of sunsets. So, if the space has n configs — n starting at 10^150 – 10^301 — then the search space is of order 2^n, order of the power set. S4GS faces an exponentially harder blind search, so the conservative search is the direct blind search, and the critical issue is not incremental change within an island of function but to find such islands in the config spaces.

    This leads to a bodyplan origin challenge on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, starting with the very first body plan, at OOL.

    Of course, the only vera causa credible, observed cause of FSCO/I — on an observation base of trillions of instances — is design, intelligently, creatively directed configuration.

    The same extends to cosmological fine tuning relevant to a cosmos that supports C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet cell based life.

    The examination of the cosmos points to clusters of factors that have to be in convergent, exceedingly sensitive life-permitting ranges (an island of function), and this too points to design. even through multiverse speculations. For such, we overwhelmingly should not be in such a world, per the Leslie lone fly on a patch of wall argument.

    In effect imagine a long wall, in some parts carpeted with flies. But in one zone of relevance just one fly sits with wide space around him, doing what flies do.

    Craack-splat.

    Not, hitting on a carpet of flies elsewhere, but that one fly.

    Which is more credible, random shot or first rate marksman with a tack driver of a rifle?

    There is much more, but this is enough to spark serious thought.

    KF

  29. 29

    Kairosficus @ 28: Good work, but don’t expect much else from rvb8 other than the same stuff he always writes.

    Like most religiously devout atheists, rvb8 is deeply and irrevocably committed to materialism (I say “most” because some such atheists do eventually see the Light).

    No matter how ridiculous the idea, rvb8 is committed to defending it at any cost if it supports atheism. He is indeed a good and compliant soldier for atheism…losing his very soul for his cherished cause.

  30. 30
    groovamos says:

    rvb: feel free to name them

    Why thank you for that opportunity, actually permission from you not on the agenda.

    My advice, don’t take your ideas to court, your witnesses generally fair poorly, so much so that Dembski after crowing about a chance to face the enemy in court, actually failed to show up at the appointed hour.

    But of course that would be your advice. And of course your advice is not needed thank goodness. Because the idea of the freedom to point students to this thread without getting fired has been taken to court in Louisiana and the court liked it. Thank goodness. Thank goodness your favored thought Gestapo lost their challenge. I guess there is a controversy after all (that students might find interesting) and thanks to your insistence on showing up here every day, you guys keep the controversy alive.

    Now back to our discussion of “progress”. Any progress seen in a few decades for Darwinian macroevolution having real-world applications? I keep thinking you will lay it out for us, or maybe just admit it doesn’t exist if you could man up to it.

  31. 31
    rvb8 says:

    Kairos,

    function and functionality, are common in your posts. What if functionality is a by-product of attraction. That is, atoms such as carbon, and silicon are prone to bind with other atoms because of their natural structures (formed in supernovas). They sre the basis of more complex molecules.

    ‘Functionality’ here, is irrelevent!

    ‘groov’, my, ‘insistance on showing up here evey day’?
    Really? You can go to Pandas and they will paste you to their ‘bathroom wall’, but they let you talk. Coyne is less patient, but allows disagreement. What exactly would this site be, if only the hallowed were allowed?

    You accuse me of sensoring ideas, you do understand the meaning of ‘irony’, I hope.

  32. 32
    Querius says:

    rvb8,

    For all of your blather, you *still* haven’t been able to provide any remotely rational basis for why you consider the consumption of certain animal protein immoral, even after being asked multiple times.

    I’ll try again.

    Is it immoral for a leopard to kill and eat a member of Homo sapiens?

    A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

    -Q

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, function based on correct organisation of coupled parts yielding an outcome not available through mere attraction or cohesion or piling etc is a well known commonplace phenomenon. Indeed it is as common as the text strings in your objecting post. Notice the description on complexity and informationally rich specificity of organisation. In the case of proteins, the elaborate nature of ribosome assembly under algorithmic, step by step action finite duration sequence control of mRNA strands shaped from DNA by transcription and editing speaks for itself. So does onward folding (often chaperoned) into key-lock fitting shapes that carry out specific tasks in cellular machinery such as ATP synthetase enzyme or the bacterial flagellum. You are trying to rhetorically obfuscate rather than focus on the material facts, a sign that you know at some level that you have a weak case on the actual merits. KF

  34. 34
    Silver Asiatic says:

    rvb8

    What if functionality is a by-product of attraction. That is, atoms such as carbon, and silicon are prone to bind with other atoms because of their natural structures (formed in supernovas). They sre the basis of more complex molecules.

    This, I think, is the basic, majority opinion within science today. Everything is a by-product of chemical combinations, and from that there are epi-phenomena or emergent properties. We had a guy here saying that same thing just about every day (I hope Zachriel was finally banned, not sure what happened). Combination of hydrogen and oxygen produce water, but bubbles or snowflakes are complex “functions” that emerge, not directly traceable to the chemical attraction but just what happens later.

    This goes all the way to human behavior. A great art work, a morally heroic act, the love between husband wife and children – are the by-products of chemical bonds.

    But the key distinction between the complex function referred to in ID (as KF explains very well) and the “chemical bond” idea is the presence of information which makes the results “variable” or “dependent” on an external purpose or reason.

    The chemical bond idea gives us processes that are entirely determined. The “reason” things happen are all contained within the chemicals. There is no information exchange.

    With complex function, there is an information circuit:

    Language/Code (has to pre-exist and known to sender and receiver)
    Sender (agent that sends message, needs sufficient power and capability to send message directionally to receiver)
    Transmission (triggered by something for a reason, right timing)
    Medium (has to be able to preserve and deliver message)
    Receiver (has to be able to recognize and capture message)
    De-Coding (has to understand language and specific message)
    Feedback (lets receiver know message was received)
    Action (Function occurs as result of message received)

    These are all independent parts. They give variable results. The Action that results is contained in the message.

    Hydrogen is not communicating information to Oxygen. When the molecules are in proximity, they bond. If not, the one does not seek to communicate anything to the other. There is no variable information exchange – no translation of code – for a function to occur.

  35. 35
    groovamos says:

    rbv ‘groov’, my, ‘insistance on showing up here evey day’

    groovballs: your insistence on showing up here every day, you guys keep the controversy alive.

    Understand that ‘your’ by context, is plural. You guys show up on here every day, maybe not every materialist alive, but plenty of you, meaning ‘you people’. Understand how English works.

    But ‘you people’ can’t leave us poor deluded, dishonest people alone with our controversy that doesn’t exist. Doesn’t’ exist according to Wikipedia and academia. The non-existent controversy that seems to have to be knocked down in academic papers, without naming the opponents and of course not quoting them, hee hee, what’s fair is fair I guess they would say. Oh and not only can the non-existent controversy not be referred to in the schools, but I guess academic papers addressing the controversy from a materialist standpoint not be referenced in the schools, or it would get you fired, right.

    I love it. And so do the youngsters watching the behavior of the academics. By the way is there any ‘progress’ in the proof that some genes somewhere specified the shape of your nose? Or the timbre of your voice?

  36. 36
    Belfast says:

    Try a bit of altruism.
    STOP RESPONDING TO RVB8
    It won’t help you I know, but it will help me.
    Thank you.

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, we notice how you have skipped off, once the central scientific issues have been seriously put on the table in correction to your dismissive talking points. Duly noted. KF

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    Or maybe it had something to do with that “craack-splat” that you mentioned, kairosfocus. 😉

    -Q

Leave a Reply