Darwinist rhetorical tactics Design inference Intelligent Design

Darwinism is Unfalsifiable: or, “Evolution is a fact”

Spread the love

I recently read about some study whose results conflict with Darwinian evolution. Despite the conflict, the author’s logic basically said that even though Darwinian thinking could not explain what nature contains, the fact that this happened meant that ‘somehow’ evolution had brought about this result, and that more study was needed to find out just how this had happened.

It occurred to me—for the first time—that this type of argument is made over and over again by Darwinists (evolutionary biologists, for the easily offended).

What do we hear:
(1) Even though the ‘odds’ of all the necessary elements and individual components of the ‘original’ cell and its contained DNA (or RNA, if we want to dream) is astronomically high, meaning that the chance of this happening randomly is effectively zero, we KNOW, that it DID HAPPEN; and, so, therefore no need to talk about the improbability of it all.
(2) The ‘odds’ of any individual protein sequence coming about by chance is astronomical; but we know it DID HAPPEN; therefore, who cares about any talk of improbability.
(3) The Cambrian Explosion happened too quickly for it to be attributed to neo-Darwinian mechanisms, yet, it DID HAPPEN; therefore, it’s just a matter of time before we figure out how “evolution did it.”
(4) Yes, the ‘odds’ of winning the lottery is sky-high; but, guess what, someone always wins; that is, it HAPPENS; therefore let’s just push to the side any talk of the improbability of it all.

If you catch my drift here, you can see that since the work of science is to discover ‘facts,’ then since ‘facts’ always HAPPEN, no one can deny they happened. And, since ‘evolution’ is a ‘fact,’ then every other ‘fact’ MUST BE EXPLAINABLE using Darwinian theory, or neo-Darwinian theory, or some kind of ‘materialistic’ explanation. Yes, that’s right: methodological naturalism.
IOW: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Once Darwinists—-oops!!!, I mean, once evolutionary biologists assume the posture that nothing outside of natural forces can be invoked to explain biological phenomena, then “evolution” can NEVER be disproved, no matter what the next experiment turns up.

I often wondered how it could be that punctuated equilibria and the Neutral Theory, initially denounced by Darwinists, came to be accepted into the mainstream of Darwinian thought. I now see that the answer is that any ‘fact’ about nature/biology can always be integrated into evolutionary thought because these things DID/DO HAPPEN!! Who can argue with that?

“Junk-DNA”?? No problem. If it is shown that 100% of DNA is functional, evolutionary biologists will one day be saying: “But, we always thought this. It only makes sense that “evolution” [“nature” if you want to substitute] would eliminate anything that doesn’t have function.” And they will simply move on.

From the above, I reach this conclusion: It’s really a big waste of time trying to argue with Darwinists because there is nothing we can point to (remember, ‘facts’ are ‘facts’) that will change their minds.

Bottom line: Evolution is NOT falsifiable.

38 Replies to “Darwinism is Unfalsifiable: or, “Evolution is a fact”

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    An eye is an ordinary thing you see,
    a matter of chance, incidentally.
    From a bumpy, light sensitive spot,
    to lenses, cones, rods and whatnot.
    Oh, it has formed time and again
    as Evolution so blindly demands.
    You see, as Darwin so aptly explained,
    that natural selection still reigns.
    It explains why things are as they be,
    and of course, the things you don’t see.
    How does it all work, I am hearing from you?
    Silly, silly you, just know it is true.

  2. 2
    JLAfan2001 says:

    PaV

    The same thing could be said about ID/creationism. Anything that comes up that doesn’t fit your theology is either ignored or “God just made it that way”. Bad design or good design, God does it all.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    It makes a whole lot more sense than nothing turning itself into everything.

    What is it about the word ‘no’, as in ‘no-thing’ that you don’t understand? I feel sure you would all understand the word, ‘no’ in any other context.

    Or have I made an unwarranted, wantonly gratuitous assumption. Is ‘nothing’, rather, a concept as open-ended and intriguing as the conjectured multiworld?

  4. 4
    fryether says:

    If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

  5. 5
    Moose Dr says:

    JLAfan2001 “The same thing could be said about ID/creationism. Anything that comes up that doesn’t fit your theology is either ignored or “God just made it that way”. Bad design or good design, God does it all.”

    Actually, you miss a major point in your argument. If one begins with “God is like this …” then your position holds validity. Certainly many of IDers and the YEC crowd very much so, come with a pre-definition of the nature of God. However, if one lets nature be honest, and one acknowledges that ID is the best explanation then one finds that nature informs characteristics of that designer(s).

    For instance, we can gather that the (s) in the above statement is unnecessary. There seems to have been one big bang. Therefore the cause of the big bang is one. (The cause may be a conglomerate working together, but if so they work as one.)

    So also with life. We have clearly determined that all life has a unified mechanism. I believe that a good case has been made for universal common descent — ultimately causing the conclusion that back, way back, there was one event where “life” started which has sustained to this day. (It may be that a soup was bubbling away creating a bazillion little initial life-forms, but only one of these has persisted.) One tree of life, one causal agent.

    I know, so far I have followed the ID/creationist party line perfectly — but the data DECLARES this!

    The data also declares that there has been conflict and death from the beginning of life. Predators have existed since well before the development of multi-cellularity. This does not fit as comfortably into the pre-existing God model. However, it is fact.

    Further, “can do it” but not “optimized” is a phenomenon of nature. (You refer to this as “bad design” though sometimes you see bad design where no bad design exists.) This too must factor into our interpretation of the nature of the designer.

    There can be no detection of design without discovering something about the nature of the designer.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    JLAfan2001 complains:

    The same thing could be said about ID/creationism. Anything that comes up that doesn’t fit your theology is either ignored or “God just made it that way”. Bad design or good design, God does it all.

    Yet, in actuality nothing could be further from the truth. As has been pointed out numerous times, ID is easily falsifiable:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”-
    Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2662469/
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Whereas neo-Darwinism has no demarcation criteria so as to falsify it:

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    Science and Pseudo-science
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosoph.....ience.aspx
    audio of lecture:
    http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/phi.....nce128.mp3

    The reason why it impossible to falsify neo-Darwinism is because it has no rigid mathematical basis like other overarching physical theories of science do (including ID: Marks, Dembski). A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, constantly shows us the Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_e.....hist12.htm

    Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=7

    The reason why it is impossible to formulate a rigid mathematical basis for neo-Darwinism, so as to separate it from psuedo-science, is because of the atheistic insistence of ‘randomness’ at the base of its formulation:

    “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'”
    Wolfgang Pauli

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Thus, without a rigid mathematical basis to falsify it, (at least no rigid basis that Darwinists will accept), neo-Darwinism will linger on and on being supported by nothing but imagination and the bluff and bluster of militant atheists.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    JLAfan2001 complains:

    The same thing could be said about ID/creationism. Anything that comes up that doesn’t fit your theology is either ignored or “God just made it that way”. Bad design or good design, God does it all.

    Yet, in actuality nothing could be further from the truth. As has been pointed out numerous times, ID is easily falsifiable:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”-
    Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2662469/
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work

    Whereas neo-Darwinism has no demarcation criteria so as to falsify it:

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    Science and Pseudo-science
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosoph.....ience.aspx
    audio of lecture:
    http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/phi.....nce128.mp3

    The reason why it impossible to falsify neo-Darwinism is because it has no rigid mathematical basis like other overarching physical theories of science do (including ID: Marks, Dembski). A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, constantly shows us the Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_e.....hist12.htm

    Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=7

    The reason why it is impossible to formulate a rigid mathematical basis for neo-Darwinism, so as to separate it from psuedo-science, is because of the atheistic insistence of ‘randomness’ at the base of its formulation:

    “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'”
    Wolfgang Pauli

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Thus, without a rigid mathematical basis to falsify it, (at least no rigid basis that Darwinists will accept), neo-Darwinism will linger on and on being supported by nothing but imagination and the bluff and bluster of militant atheists.

  8. 8
    mahuna says:

    I’m willing to accept the idea of a Designer (or Creator), but I’m not very hot for Jehovah being the Creator or any of the myths that flow from that story. So I find the mice who commissioned the construction of Earth as an analogue computer in “The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” to be a better working paradigm. If the Designer wanted us to know more about them, they would make the Near Death Experience more common, and longer.

    The fact that we don’t know, and probably can’t know, anything about the Designer does not mean that the Designer doesn’t exist. Kinda the way that flatworms can’t imagine what a human Biologist is or what motives the Biologist has for cutting flatworms in half (see “The Worm Runner’s Digest”).

    Immediately jumping from the Theory of a Designer to Jehovah simply ruins the useful parts of Intelligent Design. If the Designer is Jehovah, that requires an entirely separate proof.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Explaining Antechinus: Stove’s Law in Action – Rob Sheldon – May 9, 2014
    Excerpt: David Stove in his Darwinian Fairytales calls evolutionary biology a fairytale and gives examples of how evolution “explains” every possible bizarre biological behavior.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85421.html

  10. 10
    Moose Dr says:

    Mahuna, “The fact that we don’t know, and probably can’t know, anything about the Designer does not mean that the Designer doesn’t exist.”

    Please read my comment above (comment #5). I believe I make a good case that when we allow “ID” to be considered, the data obligates that we do know something, quite a bit, about the designer.

    Please abandon the platitudes and look at the data.

  11. 11
    Barb says:

    “It becomes increasingly obvious that, like the Darwinians, the warming supporters are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know – and like the Darwinians their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma.” Christopher Booker, Daily Telegraph, February 2009

    “In a guest editorial for American Laboratory magazine [November 1980, page 10], biochemist Donald F. Calbreath, Ph.D., pointed out three ways in which evolutionists deceive the public. First, the teaching of creationism in school is opposed because it is said to involve religion. “However,” he writes, “the secular humanism prevalent both in the classroom and in the teacher training programs must be considered just as much a religion. . . . Since both deal in some realms that cannot be dealt with completely by scientific experimentation, a certain element of faith is necessary for the acceptance of the tenets of the system.”

    Before Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, most people supposed that there had to be a God, since there was no other way to explain the existence of things. But with acceptance of the theory of evolution, many apparently felt that there was no longer any need for belief in God.

    Despite the fact that many scientists today raise serious questions as to the validity of theories set forth in support of evolution, belief in Darwin’s teaching is still advocated.

    The unwillingness of materialists to consider an alternative does not mean that evolution has to right anymore than the stubbornness of the religious leaders in Galileo’s day meant that Galileo had to be wrong. Emotion and prejudice can blind scientists just as easily as it can blind religious leaders.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Mahuna you state:

    I find the mice who commissioned the construction of Earth as an analogue computer in “The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” to be a better working paradigm.

    I agree with Moose Dr

    Please abandon the platitudes and look at the data.

    Maybe God intimidates you and a imaginary mouse is much less threatening for you. But as for myself, If I’m going to have a God it will not be an imaginary god, such as the strawman version that Darwinists continually argue against and such as you prefer, but it will be THE GOD who created this universe by the infinite power of his word, i.e. ‘Let There Be Light’, and who entered this world and defeated death on my behalf so that I do not have to die but can live eternally in heaven with Him. Any lesser god is simply not worth having, besides the fact that such lesser god is a figment of imagination

    Hebrews 2:14-15
    “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.”

    He’s Alive – Dolly Parton – 1989 CMA – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRPWUHM80M

    “The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like “love” make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never.”
    Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony

    The Easter Question – Eben Alexander, M.D. – March 2013
    Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,,
    Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that — a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn’t simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one.
    But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it’s-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,,
    We are, really and truly, made in God’s image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation — one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone.
    But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It’s not the world we actually live in.,,,
    ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer… and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....79741.html

    Why Hell is so Horrible – Bill Wiese – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hd_so3wPw8

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    Copied from another thread:

    Want to see abundant examples of complex specified purpose-oriented functional information processing mechanisms in action?
    Just look at the elaborate mechanisms that produce and operate the spindle apparatus that plays such an important role in the intrinsic asymmetric divisions during embryonic development. Also look at the sophisticated choreographies and orchestrations that produce and operate the genotype-phenotype association. Pay attention at the details that lead to relatively consistent proportions of the different cell types. Observe carefully the timing for the start of the different developmental phases. Enjoy the increasing availability of data coming out of the research labs, which shed more light on all those wonderful systems.
    That’s why so many engineers and computer scientists are fascinated by all this. These are exciting days to look at science.

    But note that there’s no mention of the origin of all those elaborate mechanisms. Just looking at the currently existing state of affairs is sufficient to excite some of us and keep us busy (scratching our heads), trying to understand it well.
    The OOL discussion, with all the references to statistics and probabilities, is too difficult, and sometimes very abstract. It’s easier to stick to basic simplicity.
    Have fun!

    Maybe when trying to figure out how to seriously describe the origin of those mechanisms, one should remember this question that was made popular in an old Wendy’s TV commercial: Where’s the beef?
    Otherwise, a child could send you back to the drawing board by asking simple questions like ‘how?’ ‘why?’
    So better keep digging, scratching, searching, using simple logics, common sense, basic reverse engineering approaches, and enjoy the experience. But let’s not fool ourselves with half cooked recipes that leave too many unanswered questions. Keep studying, thinking, being open-minded.
    These are fascinating days for honest science researchers, because the overwhelming data avalanche coming out of the labs is shedding much light on the processes under investigation.
    Let’s enjoy together the unending revelation of the ultimate reality.
    Have fun!

  14. 14
    Box says:

    Moose DR’s “one has to know the designer before one can infer design” is a very well-known argument. It deserves a place in Resources – Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design.

  15. 15
    PaV says:

    JLAfan2001:

    The same thing could be said about ID/creationism. Anything that comes up that doesn’t fit your theology is either ignored or “God just made it that way”. Bad design or good design, God does it all.

    You’re raising theological issues. These are separate issues from those of whether or not intelligent agency is needed in order to explain what we see in biology.

    I don’t think ID is not-falsifiable. If credible mechanisms could be discovered or proposed that pointed to even a marginal chance that what we see in biology might be explained invoking these mechanisms, then I would embrace that view. I searched for such mechanisms. They are no where to be found, I’m afraid.

    Some time back I stated on this blogsite that as whole genome analysis became more reliable and less expensive, meaning that more and more genomes would be looked at rather than just the genomes of lab animals, that either Darwinism would be vindicated (i.e., ‘intermediate’ genomes would be found) or Darwinism would be decimated (i.e., huge genomic gaps between higher taxa). We’ve seen the latter, not the former.

    Everyone talks about the “Copernican revolution” as though it took place in a short span of time. No, it took over a 100 years. One could argue that it took even longer. People don’t give up on their notion of how things very easily. It will take time. But each time whole genome analysis becomes available for more and more disparate species, a stake is driven more and more into the heart of Darwinism.

    I have a phrase for it: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.”

  16. 16
    PaV says:

    Barb @ #11:

    Nice to have you here, Barb!

  17. 17
    kevnick says:

    Barb,

    Thank you for your comment.

    BTW: What’s your personal thought on the idea, that the “global warming” is the result of God’s at least partial intervention; the preparation of the Earth to return to the paradise-like conditions with lash vegetation etc.

  18. 18
    tjguy says:

    Mahuna writes:

    If the Designer wanted us to know more about them, they would make the Near Death Experience more common, and longer.

    Or, He would have revealed himself to us in other ways – like sending his Son to live among us and giving us a book in which He does explain these things.

    Hmm. Seems to me I have heard of such a book somewhere!

    Now where was that? Think, think, think!

  19. 19
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Of course evolution is falsifiable. Find human fossils coexisting with dinosaur fossils. Find Dinosaur fossils alongside Cambrian fossils. Find proof that the earth is only 6000 years. I could go on.

    But please give me a single piece of evidence that could falsify intelligent design. Not the flagellum example suggested earlier, because that just suggest a way in which the explanation for one structure could be proven wrong, not that intelligent design could be wrong.

  20. 20
    Upright BiPed says:

    give me a single piece of evidence that could falsify intelligent design

    There is nothing difficult about this question, regardless of your point-of-view. You can easily find your answer in the OoL discussion (example, Koonin). The thing that would falsify ID is the very same thing that would demonstrate materialism is actually possible; funny how that works out. It’s the rise of a functioning translation system encoded in the medium it translates. It marks the beginning of Darwinian heredity, and the cell cannot be organized without it.

    No one is holding their breath on that deal.

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    Acartia_bogart- unguided evolution can’t count for humans nor dinosaurs, so your “falsification” needs some work.

  22. 22
    Eric Anderson says:

    PaV:

    Interesting discussion. We often hear that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable and that it has been falsified. Evolutionists are right to point out that it can’t be both ways. For example, I would call ID critics on the carpet if they claimed, simultaneously, that ID has been falsified and is unfalsifiable.

    As a result, I generally take the position that evolution, at least the neo-Darwinian synthesis, presents a legitimate scientific claim that can be falsified. I think it has been falsified.

    However, I understand your frustration and the example you gave from the article you read could be multiplied by a thousand other examples. So, certainly the broader evolutionary paradigm seems to just keep living on, no matter how many times a particular aspect has been proven wrong. A type of zombie theory that just won’t die, no matter how many times it has been shot down.

    The difference, I believe, between the falsifiability of ID and the falsifiability of evolutionary theory lies in the fact that ID makes an extremely narrow and specific claim — one that can be expressed in a single sentence and that can be proven wrong at any time by a relevant discovery. In contrast, evolution (broadly speaking) is a huge collection of differing (even competing) ideas, proposals, claims, suggestions, assumptions — a large smorgasbord that is all over the map.

    Parts of this smorgasbord are being challenged and proven false all the time. But the underlying materialist assumption does not get re-considered in the evolutionist’s mind. As long as that assumption holds sway over the evolutionist’s mindset, no series of facts or events will overturn his theory that everything came about through undirected natural processes.

    A while back I wrote (in discussing irreducible complexity as a subset of specified complexity):

    More importantly, to the extent that they [Darwinists] do not accept the larger specified complexity argument or to the extent that they simply start with an a priori philosophical stance of allowing only explanations based on chance and necessity, then examples of stunning current irreducible complexity, such as the bacterial flagellum or the mammalian eye, will not be viewed as a refutation of the Darwinian mechanism, but in a wondrous twist of evolutionary logic will be regarded as a confirmation of the great creative power of evolution.
    (Emphasis added.)

    http://www.researchgate.net/pu.....xity_Space

    That is, if I may, the heart of the problem. And perhaps it underscores what you are saying — no amount of debating or evidence can break through the materialistic assumption holding the whole thing together.

    All that said, I guess I am a bit less pessimistic about the value of debating. Maybe a committed materialist is beyond being reached, but there are a few fence-sitters, as well as materialists who aren’t quite so entrenched but who have adopted materialism as a convenience or because they think it is the only alternative to a full-scale Biblical literalism; there may even be an occasional committed materialist who is more committed to the truth than the materialism. Those people — the fence-sitters, the convenience materialists, and the open-minded — even if they are few and far between (the Anthony Flews and the Lee Strobels of the world), are still worth reaching out to.

  23. 23
    PaV says:

    AcartiaB:

    Of course evolution is falsifiable. Find human fossils coexisting with dinosaur fossils. Find Dinosaur fossils alongside Cambrian fossils. Find proof that the earth is only 6000 years. I could go on.

    Did I say “evolution” is not falsifiable? Take a look. I said “Darwinism” is unfalsifiable.

    But please give me a single piece of evidence that could falsify intelligent design.

    The discovery of the sequence of a protein coded inside a shale formation.

  24. 24
    drc466 says:

    A_B,

    Of course evolution is falsifiable. Find human fossils coexisting with dinosaur fossils. Find Dinosaur fossils alongside Cambrian fossils. Find proof that the earth is only 6000 years.

    I disagree. Here’s a quick test for you:

    There exists a multitude of dino soft-tissue finds – do you accept these as evidence that dinosaurs lived recently, not hundreds of millions of years ago?

    If YES, then Darwinism is falsified.

    If NO, then Darwinism is not falsifiable. Darwinists will always be able to rationalize away the evidence.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    “What Would Disprove Evolution?” – July 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Paleontological theory, however, allows for such devices as “ghost lineages” to repair the damage; see ENV’s coverage here and here. (links on the site)
    Again, discordance between molecular and anatomical phylogenies is commonplace in systematics; see here.(link on the site)
    But we expect Coyne is able to handle these anomalies via his shock-absorbing adjective “complete,” which allows an indefinitely large range of possibilities, short of “complete” discordance (whatever that means).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61891.html

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....31061.html

    “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

    “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.” –
    On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: (Gregory) Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    Here’s the null hypothesis for ID:

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2662469/
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work

    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,,

    Testable hypotheses about FSC

    What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

    Null hypothesis #1
    Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

    Null hypothesis #2
    Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

    Null hypothesis #3
    Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

    Null hypothesis #4
    Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

    We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

  26. 26
    Eric Anderson says:

    Acartia_bogart

    Of course evolution is falsifiable. Find human fossils coexisting with dinosaur fossils. Find Dinosaur fossils alongside Cambrian fossils.

    Can you please articulate which principle of evolution prevents human fossils from coexisting with dinosaur fossils, or that prevents dinosaur fossils alongside Cambrian fossils?

    You are confusing the empirical evidence of what has so far been discovered in the fossil record with evolutionary theory (which is an attempt to explain what has been found in the fossil record).

    PaV is quite right that if the proverbial rabbit were found in the Cambrian (a favorite silly Darwinist “evolution-is-falsifiable” talking point) it would present absolutely no problem for evolutionary theory. It would just be explained as “Well, whaddya know! Turns out there were rabbits in the Cambrian after all. Amazing what evolution can do!”

    Evolutionary theory doesn’t predict anything in particular about which creatures will be found where. Oh, sure, we might have some ideas and some hunches based on what we have so far discovered in the fossil record. But there is no principle of evolutionary theory that would prevent or require any particular creature to show up at any particular place or time. And since no predictions are made, such a discovery would not, by definition, be able falsify evolutionary theory either.

  27. 27
    Eric Anderson says:

    mahuna @8:

    If the Designer wanted us to know more about them, they would make the Near Death Experience more common, and longer.

    False. There are lots of ways a designer could have of helping us know more about them — including a requirement that faith be exercised and developed, or that exceptional study and effort be required. NDE’s are certainly not a requirement in any sense.

    Immediately jumping from the Theory of a Designer to Jehovah simply ruins the useful parts of Intelligent Design. If the Designer is Jehovah, that requires an entirely separate proof.

    True.

  28. 28
    Eric Anderson says:

    JLAfan2001:

    The same thing could be said about ID/creationism. Anything that comes up that doesn’t fit your theology is either ignored or “God just made it that way”. Bad design or good design, God does it all.

    I understand the reason for your comment, but the situations are not parallel.

    Virtually every ID advocate (certainly all the prominent proponents) acknowledge that — in addition to design — certain evolutionary and natural and chance processes operate in the world. Thus, ID proponents have a broader range of explanatory tools in their toolkit. ID proponents take the position that if we look at the world around us, we will see that some things are designed and some are not. This rather commonsense approach allows the ID proponent to dig into the details, find the demarcation line, and discover which aspects of reality evidence design and which do not.

    In contrast, the materialist has a smaller set of explanatory tools. By refusing to consider design as a possibility, the materialist must assert that nothing is designed. This results in taking absurd positions that fly in the face of the evidence, and in making up all kinds of ad hoc explanations for how complex functional specified systems came into being.

    Whereas ID proponents are perfectly happy to acknowledge that some things are designed and some are not, the committed materialist must take a militantly-aggressive position that nothing is designed. If the evidence warrants it, ID proponents will readily accept that hundreds or even thousands of things in biology are not designed. In stark contrast, a single example of one thing in biology that is designed would overturn the materialist’s theory.

    So the situation is not at all parallel. Indeed, when it comes to falsifying the respective theories, the situation even seems to be stacked against the materialist. And it is. The materialist is, intellectually speaking, competing with one hand tied behind his back. But that is not the fault of ID proponents; that is not the fault of those who see what is quite self-evident to most rational individuals: namely, that some things are designed and some are not.

    No. It is the fault of the materialist, who has painted himself into an intellectual corner. A corner that requires taking extreme, even absurd, positions — a take-no-prisoners attitude that cannot admit to even one designed system in the cosmos or in life.

  29. 29
    Barb says:

    kevnick:

    BTW: What’s your personal thought on the idea, that the “global warming” is the result of God’s at least partial intervention; the preparation of the Earth to return to the paradise-like conditions with lash vegetation etc.

    I freely admit to never having heard this particular theory behind global warming. I would have to say no, because acknowledging it would require me to believe that God causes hurricanes, floods, typhoons, and earthquakes, which in turn cause collateral (human) and property damage.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides the fact that neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science that has no rigid mathematical, empirical, nor even theoretical, basis,,,

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science – Part II
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

    ,,besides all that, the main problem for neo-Darwinists is that they have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can produce functional information,,,

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

    ,,In fact Dr. Behe surveyed the last 4 decades of laboratory evolution experiments and found that there was an overwhelming tendency of Darwinian processes to degrade preexistent functional information in order to gain a fitness advantage than there ever was to build novel functional information:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    In fact there is a null hypothesis in place stating that unguided material processes will NEVER generate non-trivial functional information:

    The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    – per scitopics

    it really is not all that hard to see exactly why unguided material processes are unable to explain the ‘emergence’ of functional information from a matter/energy basis.

    “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
    And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
    In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
    Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
    -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

    Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

    John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw

    “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
    Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician -(Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field.

    i.e. it is not surprising that neo-Darwinian processes are completely inadequate to explain to ‘emergence’ of functional information from a matter/energy basis, since information is not reducible to matter/energy in the first place. Moreover, if that was not bad enough for neo-Darwinists, it is now found that both matter and energy reduce to ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum’ information instead of information reducing to a matter/energy basis as is presupposed in neo-Darwinian thought:

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..1769/posts

    New Breakthrough in (Quantum) Teleportation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xqZI31udJg
    Quote from preceding video:
    “There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.”

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for neo-Darwinists, this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum information is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale,,

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral – February 2011
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi.....4053v2.pdf

    And, as mentioned previously, this information is ‘non-local’,,

    Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed.,,,
    The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,,
    “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142217.htm

    Of additional note, encoded ‘classical’ information such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of conserved ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    It is very interesting that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    The implication of finding conserved ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum information/entanglement in our body on a massive scale is fairly self evident:

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-3
    In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.

    Kutless – Promise of a Lifetime
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ooFMefOZQ

  32. 32
    Eric Anderson says:

    Barb:

    I would have to say no, because acknowledging it would require me to believe that God causes hurricanes, floods, typhoons, and earthquakes, which in turn cause collateral (human) and property damage.

    You mean like the stuff in the Bible? 🙂

  33. 33
    Barb says:

    Eric @ 32: I don’t recall the Bible mentioning hurricanes. Natural disasters and acts of God, at least in the Bible, are differentiated. Acts of God (like the biblical flood) came with advanced warnings. Most natural disasters, save hurricanes, have little to no advanced warning.

    Are you suggesting that God causes and “aims” natural disasters at particular areas? Because that belief is completely at odds with the god of the Bible.

  34. 34
    Dionisio says:

    Eric Anderson @ 32

    like the stuff in the Bible?

    Could the God referred to by Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3 have enough knowledge and power to create, dissolve or detour a hurricane or any natural phenomena, if it is according to His will? Could He make the mechanisms behind the spindle apparatus that operate during the intrinsic asymmetric cell division in the first few weeks of human embryonic development?

    [BTW, can one believe that the above mentioned biblical passages were carefully translated from ancient extant manuscripts that were substantially accurate copies of the original truthful scriptures?]

  35. 35
    PaV says:

    Eric Anderson:

    Nice response. I’m not saying so much that debate is useless, as I’m saying that with committed materialists, which most evolutionary biologists=Darwinists are, they simply “refuse” to let go of their materialist view. So, if something happened that can be seen in some kind of material way, then they will say that materialist forces brought it about, and, hence, that it is a “fact.”

    If this is their a priori position, AND!!!, they claim that this is what SCIENCE is!!!, well, Darwinism is completely non-falsifiable. And it becomes meaningless because anything that is discovered must be interpreted solely via material forces, and therefore can never ‘falsify’ Darwinism since it relies completely on material forces for an explanation. No matter how diametrically opposed any discovery is to Darwinian thought, ultimately, given enough time and “imagination,” some way of incorporating it into the Darwinian ‘narrative’ (another “just-so” story) will be eventually found.

    [[So, you see, Superman and Kryptonite can actually get along. It turns out that the force that Kryptonite exerts on Superman is mediated via the ‘strong force.’ And, since the ‘strong force’ works at such small dimensions, with the right kind of ‘shielding’ Kryptonite’s ‘strong force’ can be converted into an ‘anti-gravitational’ force, thus allowing Superman to “scale tall buildings in a single bound” with much less exertion. Wasn’t that a nice “just-so” story? Maybe I should be published.]]

    What I’m reacting to here isn’t just contraindications to Darwinian theory; we’re looking at things that are the complete opposite of Darwinian expectations, and then these very same things become ‘incorporated’ into Darwinian thought. It’s really mind-boggling. It’s sort of like Euclidean mathematicians being shown that non-Euclidean math has actual physical applications, and then the Euclidean mathematicians telling everyone that “non-Euclidean” math is comportable with Euclidean math. It’s a bit breathtaking at times.

    I’m not discouraged. I’m simply pointing out—hopefully to Darwinists—that they’ve over and over again taken positions which renders their viewpoint non-falsifiable. We’re no longer in the realm of ‘science,’ but, rather, in metaphysics. It is the imposition of materialism, or, positivism of a sort.

    This kind of positivism is, IMHO, wreaking havoc in the field of quantum mechanics as well. And, too, slowly, we see this creeping into the entire realm of physics. Hence, we now have reputable and renown scientists telling us all about an “infinite number of infinite multiverses.” Now, tell me, how do you “falsify” a “multiverse”?

    It’s the same perverse logic. And a logic that is invoked for the very same reason: to avoid the appearance that religious views are conformable with reality; i.e., so as to completely discredit religion.

  36. 36
    jerry says:

    PAV,

    There has been debate the last few weeks as to what materialist/naturalist actually advocate in terms of evolution. There seems to be two camps.

    1. The first says that most of the complexity arose through recombination and allele assortment with some new alleles created through mutations. In other words look at dog breeding and see the remarkably different types that can come about in a few generations of selective breeding. A key concept is the sweep of alleles necessary to produce a specific change.

    Hence enough reproduction affected by environmental pressures leads to changes in all sorts of things and sooner or later we have a new species. Ad infinitum till we have all the species in the world.

    2. The second camp says this cannot explain all that we see and that there must be constant additions to the genome in terms of new variation. A lot of this variation is initially not functional but with further mutation, some small amount becomes functional and we have a new coding sequence. Played out over trillions of recombinations and we have our current alignment of species.

    This seems to be what Allen MacNeill has been recommending for years and what a new book by Nei is saying. Other followers of Stephen Gould say the same thing.

    The interesting thing is that both present testable hypothesis. Genomes are not a dime a dozen these days but they are getting very cheap to do, so that no species will escape scrutiny. All the changes that are proposed by these two camps should leave evidence in the various genomes, trails of the journey from one species to another.

    The result will be either the verification of either Camps 1 and 2 or ID. Of course if Camps 1 and 2 are nullified by the research they will go back to the drawing board for a Camp 3 or Camp 4 etc.

  37. 37
    Eric Anderson says:

    Barb:

    Well, the Bible is pretty clear that God can, and does at times, cause natural calamities — floods, plagues, sickness, quakes, fires, tempests and so on.

    Now, if your argument is that God only does such things for a good reason and/or only does such things after issuing a warning, then that is a different argument. 🙂

    —–

    BTW, I don’t think that most natural disasters have anything to do with God. Just pointing out that we need to be careful not to say that God wouldn’t do such things.

  38. 38
    Barb says:

    Eric @ 37:

    Now, if your argument is that God only does such things for a good reason and/or only does such things after issuing a warning, then that is a different argument.

    That’s what I indicated in my previous post.

Leave a Reply