Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism: An Embarrassment for Legitimate Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I write this post from a hotel room in Livermore, California, home of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where my company has sent me for advanced training in computational fluid dynamics using LS-DYNA, arguably the most advanced finite element analysis program ever devised, originally at LLNL in the 1970s for the development and analysis of variable-yield nuclear weapons.

I have a particular interest in LLNL because my father worked on the Manhattan A-bomb Project during WWII, and was the founder and director of an experimental nuclear reactor at Washington State University, which has been named in his honor.

Here is some info from the LLNL website:

For more than half a century, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied cutting-edge science and technology to enhance national security.
Origins. The Laboratory was established in 1952 at the height of the Cold War to meet urgent national security needs by advancing nuclear weapons science and technology. Renowned physicists E.O. Lawrence and Edward Teller argued for the creation of a second laboratory to augment the efforts of the laboratory at Los Alamos.

The people who developed this technology are legitimate scientists. Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about. Compare the accomplishments of the LLNL scientists and developers of LS-DYNA to those of people like Dawkins and his “weasel” program.

Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.

Comments
"We have no independent evidence of a external designer. So it is reasonable to ask: is there an intrinsic design-like process that could achieve the same kind of result? And the answer is: yes, there is." I think, at least in your case, that has yet to be determined.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
arkady967:
I’ve seen, now, a couple of mentions in a couple of places, words to this effect…”given that we have no independent evidence for such a designer…” What is meant by this? Independant of what, or what would constitute independant evidence of a designer? (Would this have a corollary to needing independant evidence for the designer’s of pyrimids in Mexico, if all you had was a pyrimid?)
What I mean by it is: we have no evidence, outside the evidence of an apparently designed object, for a designer. What would constitute independent evidence for a designer in the case of pyramids in Mexico is evidence that human beings exist; that they existed in Mexico; that human beings are capable of designing pyramids; that we observe human beings building pyramid-like objects; we have independent archaeological evidence of human settlement, including evidence of the tools and technology required to build the pyramid, etc. We also have the total absence of any alternative hypothesis, because pyramids don't reproduce.
As to the bit about how design processes might be implemetned (“nor for any mechanism by which such a designer could implement his/her designs”) several questions come to mind: Would absence of such knowledge, or the inability to posit such a theory, necessarily negate evidence for design and by what law of science would one do so? Too, is it possible that the level of sophistication required to produce and implement the kinds of systems found in the natural world are beyond the current state of human knowledge thus opaque to current means of investigation? (Think Darwin and the true nature of heredity….or early concepts of the composition of mater, or the nature of light -maybe understanding design in biology is, in some instances, at a level analogus to, or even less advanced than pre-relativistic concept of light speed.)
Well, for example, we know that designers (human ones) can, in fact, design genomes, and we know about the kinds of methods they use to do so, including methods for sequencing the genomes, for inserting additional or alternative sequences into the genomes etc. If invading aliens wiped out the human species with a neutron bomb and tried to investigate the origins of living things on earth, one of the things they would find were lab animals with genomes that indicated a non-nested hierarchy - strongly suggesting something other than common descent with modification. They'd then find that evidence that one recently extinct species of animal (humans) had the technology to insert part of a genome from one lineage into the lineage of another. But we have no evidence for this on earth prior to our own genetic tinkerers. So the next question is: where do we think our postulated designer might have stepped in? Did s/he seed the planet with the simplest form capable of Darwinian evolution and let Darwinian processes take over from there? Or does s/he invisible guide the mutational process so as to ensure a steady supply of useful alleles? or did s/he "frontload" the ancestral genome with dormant sequences which would be activated by hostile environments as needed? In which case, what form could these take? In other words, even if we postulate an invisible Designer wielding invisible forces within the reproductive apparatus of living cells, what do we postulate these forces are actually doing? And is there any evidence for this occuring?
I wonder, too, if oppostion to design theory isn’t rooted in issues other than science. Design Theorist’s are often accused of a lack of imagination – seems to me that, when encountering the subject under discussion in regards to design, only certain types of imagination are permitted.
No, I don't think so. I'd be perfectly happy to postulate a Designer if there was a clear design hypothesis. I'm even happy to concede that as yet we have no clear hypothesis regarding the origins of the simplest entity capable of Darwinian evolution, or indeed, how simple that might be. Perhaps we do have to posit a miraculous designer at that point. But that shouldn't stop us looking for a non-miraculous one, because, by definition, a miraculous designer can't be found by scientific methods, only by the failure of scientific methods.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Chris:
Nick, William and Lizzie all fail to recognise (or admit) that they are bringing prejudices to the table which are impairing their reason and blinding them to the scientific facts.
This is, of course, perfectly possible. But, equally, it is possible that equivalent prejudices are impairing your reason, and blinding you to the scientific facts! Probably both are, to some extent true. But we will get no-where by simply assuming that we (whoever we is) are clear-sighted and the other side are not. Instead we need to figure out just which scientific facts are at issue and why each side interprets them differently (or, indeed, selects them differently). And sometimes we need to actually establish where we disagree. Just as I'm sure you often see lots of strawmen arguments against ID ("It's creationism in fancy dress!") so from our PoV, we see what seem to be grave misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Clearing the field of straw men is a daunting task, but an important one if we are going to have a genuine debate.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Dala@
Ok, so we all agree that design seems obvious. We might have no idea who/what/how the design came about, but still, it seems obviuos that its there. If you still choose to reject the obvious simply because you don’t belive its possible that its there, you are of course rejecting an obvious conclusion based on belief, not on evidence.
Not at all. We have no independent evidence of a external designer. So it is reasonable to ask: is there an intrinsic design-like process that could achieve the same kind of result? And the answer is: yes, there is. Moreover, if we ask ourselves: what are the processes by which known designers (humans, for instance) design things, we find that the process is not unlike the Darwinian process (hence the term "Neural Darwinism). And btw - I do think it is serious mistake to assume that people whose conclusions you disagree with reached those conclusions because of some "belief" system, rather than argument and evidence. Sometimes this is the case; many times it is not, and so I think it is a very unsafe starting assumption. I make a point of always assuming that people who disagree with me do so on rational grounds. I think it's a much more productive assumption, even when, as it sometimes does, it turns out to be probably unwarranted! So no, I do not reject the "obvious conclusion based on belief, not evidence". I think the obvious conclusion is, in fact, that a design process was involved. Given that conclusion, my next question is: what was that design process? I don't think "an external intentional designer" is the obvious answer to that question. In fact I suggest that there are serious difficulties with that hypothesis.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
How can this not be obvious?
Elizabeth Liddle:
This is a good question. It certainly seems obvious, doesn’t it? But what seems obvious sometimes turns out not to be the case.
Ok, so we all agree that design seems obvious. We might have no idea who/what/how the design came about, but still, it seems obviuos that its there. If you still choose to reject the obvious simply because you don't belive its possible that its there, you are of course rejecting an obvious conclusion based on belief, not on evidence. At least you agree the evidence points towards design even if, for some unknown reason (belief?), you try to explain away the obvious.Dala
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Precisely, arkady967. All very good points, well made. Nick, William and Lizzie all fail to recognise (or admit) that they are bringing prejudices to the table which are impairing their reason and blinding them to the scientific facts. I explored this issue in more detail on a previous thread by GilDodgen: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evil-music-logic-and-himalayan-dung-heaps/comment-page-2/#comment-389593 This debate is not really about the evidence being open to interpretation. After all, the evidence only leads one way: Intelligent Design. What this debate is really about is why do some people - atheists mainly - believe that everything just made itself purely naturalistically, by accident, despite the fact that it is blatantly obvious that it didn't? We already know there is no rational or empirical basis for this position. So, what is the real reason? Something emotional or cultural perhaps? As Terry Pratchett once said, he was “rather angry with God for not existing.” I suspect that many opponents of ID are harbouring similar feelings and because ID is guilty of being more compatible with God than evolution is, they must reject it no matter what.Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
I've seen, now, a couple of mentions in a couple of places, words to this effect..."given that we have no independent evidence for such a designer..." What is meant by this? Independant of what, or what would constitute independant evidence of a designer? (Would this have a corollary to needing independant evidence for the designer's of pyrimids in Mexico, if all you had was a pyrimid?) As to the bit about how design processes might be implemetned ("nor for any mechanism by which such a designer could implement his/her designs") several questions come to mind: Would absence of such knowledge, or the inability to posit such a theory, necessarily negate evidence for design and by what law of science would one do so? Too, is it possible that the level of sophistication required to produce and implement the kinds of systems found in the natural world are beyond the current state of human knowledge thus opaque to current means of investigation? (Think Darwin and the true nature of heredity....or early concepts of the composition of mater, or the nature of light -maybe understanding design in biology is, in some instances, at a level analogus to, or even less advanced than pre-relativistic concept of light speed.) I wonder, too, if oppostion to design theory isn't rooted in issues other than science. Design Theorist's are often accused of a lack of imagination - seems to me that, when encountering the subject under discussion in regards to design, only certain types of imagination are permitted.arkady967
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Nick, perhaps you think you are being 'scientific', but in your exchange with LivingstoneMorford, when he had clearly dismantled your argument for T3SS to flagellum,,, you stated this as perhaps your 'strongest' argument for 'non-design' of the flagellum; 'So Someone intelligently designed the flagellum so that it could later evolve into the T3SS and cause things like bubonic plague? What an mean guy!' https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-were-so-many-darwin-defenders-no-shows-at-the-world%E2%80%99s-premier-evolutionary-conference/#comment-389444 Now Nick this is not science!!! Clearly, this is blatantly dishonest to the facts of science,,, i.e. instead of you conceding to the fact that you are at a complete loss to explain how the flagellum arose,,, as this guy did,,, 'Since the flagellum is so well designed and beautifully constructed by an ordered assembly pathway, even I, who am not a creationist, get an awe-inspiring feeling from its 'divine' beauty.,, if the flagellum evolved from a primitive form, ...where are the remnants of its ancestor? Why don't we see any intermediate or simpler forms of flagella than what they are today? How was it possible that the flagella have evolved without leaving traces in history? - Shin-Ichi Aizawa - What Is Essential for Flagella Assembly? - 2009 - Pili and Flagella - Chpt. 6 Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 ,, You, as is normal for Darwinists ever since Darwin, use the theologically based 'Bad Design' argument to argue for evolution,,, Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html ,,, as Ayala did here against William Lane Craig: Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg Now Nick why are Darwinists in such a sad state of affairs scientifically that they have to use such deceptive ploys to try to make their case??? Using extremely 'bad theology' to try to make ones point in science Nick???,,, As Gil said in the title, Darwinism: An Embarrassment for Legitimate Science... ==================== "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble." Phillip Johnson - Wall Street Journal "A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00 Moreover Darwinism is useless to science and medicine: Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ. "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. Philip S. Skell - Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096bornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
There was also this UD news headline: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/extrapolation-studies-discover-single-gene-that-creates-human-brain/ offered that readers might scoff at the idiocies of Darwinism. And yet not even the Science Daily headline made the strawman claim of the UD news headline, let alone the original paper. It would become this site, as it becomes anyone or any body claiming to be making a good scientific argument, to correct errors once they are pointed out. Or, at the very least, to offer a counter-rebuttal. It sometimes happens here, which I find refreshing. But as of now, two clearly erroneous news stories on this site stand unretracted!Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
Gil,
Once I got out of the ivory tower of academic Darwinian indoctrination, entered the real world, developed AI software, and became an engineer, mathematician, and computer scientist, I realized how absurd and unrealistic Darwinian speculation was.
Perhaps you should return to university and get a forth degree, one related to a biological field? That way your criticisms might have more to them then just "Darwinism is stupid".
Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about.
In fact judging solely on output I find it's you that is the pseudo-scientist with no notion of what science is about. You and several other well known ID names are exactly that - pseudo-scientists. Your claims that Darwinism is falling are the same claims that have been made since Darwin first proposed his theory. What have you ever contributed to scientific understanding? Apart from of course finding better, more accurate ways to kill people by working for the military. Oh, I'm sure you'll claim it's all about getting supplies to the troops, but what are they for in the first place Gil? Tell me Gil, if Darwinism is so wrong and it's supporters are all pseudo-scientists then what's your prediction for the final fall of Darwinism? It must be soon, right?
Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.
And ID is a laughable side show only of interest to those scientists who can be bothered to fight through the morass of deliberate misrepresentations that it's supporters generate. For example, "news" had a story about a new paper. The author of that paper appeared in the comments to explain that "news" had got it all wrong and had totally misunderstood the paper. Not a single reply. If you were really scientists here then you'd have updated your understanding at that moment. But no, truth does not actually matter. It's just the spin.
Darwinists are living in an era gone by.
You can say it as many times as you like it does not make it true. And even if the era of Darwinism passes into history you are deluded if you think that ID is somehow going to step into it's place. It's not going to happen!WilliamRoache
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
Gil:
How can this not be obvious?
This is a good question. It certainly seems obvious, doesn't it? But what seems obvious sometimes turns out not to be the case. It seemed obvious that solid things were made of solid stuff all through until we discovered that atoms were mostly empty space. It seemed obvious that two moving objects each moving towards each other at a speed of X would have speed relative to each other of 2X, until Einstein showed that this was not the case. And to many of us, it turns out to be the case that living things, which seem as though they must have been designed by an intentional designer, could equally - and indeed more plausibly, given that we have no independent evidence for such a designer, nor for any mechanism by which such a designer could implement his/her designs - by brought about by a quasi-design process known as self-replication with modification and heritable differential reproduction. Clearly you disagree - but where I think you are absolutely wrong is in your apparent assumption that those of us who disagree with you are somehow deluded, victims of indoctrination, stupid, or blinded by emotional vested interest in an atheist worldviewe. When intelligent people disagree - and I count you as intelligent, as I count myself, and, indeed Nick, then it's worth finding out where the disagreement lies, and why there could be two such different interpretations, by intelligent people, of the evidence we have. Dismissing the other side as deluded (and both sides do it), seems to me simply silly. There's a real argument to be had here - bring it on :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Nick, The Darwinian hypothesis about the origin of information in living systems is simply not credible. This is not hard to figure out, and design is the only reasonable, rational inference. Have I ever been to an evolution meeting? Yes. I attended such a meeting on a perpetual basis from the time I was a small child until I left the university with my three degrees. Once I got out of the ivory tower of academic Darwinian indoctrination, entered the real world, developed AI software, and became an engineer, mathematician, and computer scientist, I realized how absurd and unrealistic Darwinian speculation was. Darwinists are living in an era gone by. They are modern-day alchemists who think that chemistry can turn lead into gold. It doesn't work that way. The nucleus of the atom must be modified to turn lead into gold, and chemistry does not have the power to do the job. And chemistry surely does not have the power to transform inanimate matter into Mozart. How can this not be obvious?GilDodgen
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
Have you ever even been to an evolution meeting? If you want to know why actual biologists dislike creationists so much, look again at your post. You are insulting an entire field of study, likely without ever seriously engaging with the data and people in it.NickMatzke_UD
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply