Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

December 2014: Events that made a difference to ID

arroba Email

Further to November 2014 (and to Barry’s suggestion that readers kindly remember Uncommon Descent in their year end giving tax receipt) – via the Donate button (our Christmas stocking) on the main page):

My sense is that we are making some headway against what Leon Wieseltier has referred to as Darwinist dittoheads, and I’d like to point to some more stories, this time from December 2014, that explain why:

The biggest stories this month, unpacked  in more detail here tomorrow:

– Time for serious pursuit of post-Darwinian theory, says new BIO-Complexity paper

– Fake Facebook pages started in an attempt to discredit ID theorists. (People fake Rolexes, not Timexes.)

– Breaking: Article in Nature by cosmologists George Ellis and Joe Silk defends integrity of physics against multiverse, string theory Also, String theory slowly unravelling, supporter concedes. But press on!

But … can physics be above science?

The News desk follows the growth in popularity of the pop science multiverse because it is a fateful decision for fact-free science. There s no evidence for the multiverse, the way that there is evidence for the fine-tuning of our universe. So multiverse proponents are now asking that we abandon traditional standards for evidence, for example Occam’s razor,

Cosmologist George Ellis has elsewhere called the multiverse the most dangerous idea in physics Scientific American. But the matter can be put more strongly than that. It obviates physics. As we said at the time,

Actually, the multiverse will bring physics, as we have known it, to an end.

To make it work, we must abandon basic principles of science. There are already calls, for example, to abandon falsifiability and many have long since given up on Occam’s razor in science.

We could also balance the universe’s books by dumping math, apparently.

Predictably, because the multiverse is promoted despite, not because of, science evidence, it hardly matters when the bubbles burst. Disappointment never lasts long.
New bubbles just get blown on the merest hint of a possibility that there might be evidence some day.

Assuming we can do without real science, the multiverse can be put to all sorts of uses: The “many worlds” multiverse explains problem of evil, some think. But the space program will seem much less attractive if a multiverse approach to reality rules. Even cosmology itself must be less attractive, absent the constraints of the rules of science. One wonders if recent budget cuts relate to that. But of course, there are winners as well as losers in these situations. Why explore when it is perfectly all right to just stay home and make it all up? Indeed, this just in: existence of Zeus proven using multiverse techniques. Well, he’s gotta be out there somewhere, and in at least one universe he is omnipotent enough to get to this universe too.

And let’s face it, in postmodern times, the multiverse is popular. Pop culture promotes it as like “evolution.” (Something you are supposed to believe because it’s cool, without really thinking through the claims, let alone subjecting them to evidence.)

Public broadcasting is getting in on the act. Columbia mathematician Peter Woit thinks it is being promoted by much more dangerously influential sources than Templeton, which is probably true.

The underlying theme of multiverse politics in science, of course, is that a multiverse would discredit fine tuning as a concept. Our universe is merely one that works, amid an arbitrarily large numbers of putative flops. But eliminating basic decision-making principles of science to wish the multiverse into existence strikes some of us as a high price to pay.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

– Speaking of fine-tuning, in December Eric Metaxas wrote on the unlikelihood of our existence. Earth’s size seems fine-tuned, and some make the same claim for the Higgs boson. See also the extreme fine tuning of light.

The Cosmos remake’s finale of course claims there is no fine-tuning of the universe for life, but then the series advocates the multiverse instead, rendering evidence irrelevant.
Here’s Rob Sheldon on the continuing quest to avoid cosmic fine tuning. And here’s Reasonable Faith.

On a lighter note, New Scientist suggests that maybe the universe is supposed to be somewhat ugly, and Huffington Post has announced that it shouldn’t exist.  Not to worry, in another universe it doesn’t exist. And in a third it is really ugly.

Fine-tuning of the universe for life was never disproven; it was ruled out of order on principle.

– Horizontal gene transfer goes big time

From PNAS: What’s wrong with peer review Thanks for noticing, guys.

Scientific American bloggers quit rather than face Orwellian censorship?

– Just for Fun:

Fun but all too real: Conference of fake evolution theories indistinguishable from conference of real ones?

Happy New Year all. Back soon. – O’Leary for News

See also: January 2014: Events that made a difference to ID (My sense is that we are making some headway against what Leon Wieseltier has referred to as Darwinist dittoheads.)

February 2014: Events that made a difference to ID We are definitely past having to care what Christians for Darwin think.

March 2014: Events that made a difference to ID: Old, taken-for-granted “truths” are collapsing; an information theory approach may help us forward.

April 2014: Events that made a difference to ID Despite these developments, naturalists would prefer chaos and nonsense to signals that point away from naturalism.

May 2014: Events that made a difference to ID  BUT then things took a really odd turn: It turned out that everyone who doubts Wade’s race theories is a creationist. Hey, is “creationist” the new “think for yourself”?

June 2014: Events that made a difference to ID In June we began to think seriously about William Dembski’s then upcoming Being as Communion, a more philosophical look at design in nature

July 2014: Events that made a difference to ID  Among many other events, a UD Post where a famous chemist says no scientist understands “macroevolution” passed 200,000 views.

August 2014: Events that made a difference to ID  Famous Darwin follower, Jerry “Why evolution is true” Coyne, was really mad that information theorist William Dembski is allowed to speak at his fort, Fort Chicago University

September 2014: Events that made a difference to ID It was becoming obvious that no one who knows the facts need be defensive about doubting the naturalist spin.

October 2014: Events that made a difference to ID Even establishment science media are now moving to recognize the problems with Darwinian evolution theory.

November 2014: Events that made a difference to ID Not only has the kill-ID bomb not exploded, but lots of people besides us are beginning to notice that fact.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

@StephenB: Factinating stuff: - "extracting knowledge or design information" became - "extracting knowledge and design information". I guess through itelligently designed mutation. Ahahahahaah!
then it is obviously not always about man made objects.
No. It's obvious these are crackpot scientists who believe in time travel. Of course if I'm not anal about applying my particular pet definition, I would look at whether the scientists ACTUALLY think the brain is intelligently designed when they talk about "reverse engineering the brain"! Quote: "...but loosely speaking reverse engineering the brain implies figuring out how it works." I rest my case. JWTruthInLove
I love how our friends deny the obvious, anyone want to bet on what we reverse engineered to build big massive dams? That's right beaver dams. Are beaver dams man made or intelligently designed by another non human intelligence? Then there is the entire new field of biomimicry which really does not give one iota about Darwinism, but an ID field that is benefiting mankind. Keep up the denial, ye of feeble minds.... Andre
JWTruthInLove Wiki
Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made and re-producing it or reproducing anything based on the extracted information.
Reverse engineering is about "extracting knowledge and design information," but if it is applied to biology or neuroscience, then it is obviously not always about man made objects. StephenB
ID predicts that design over time uses both single and multiple inheritance. We know this from observing human designs. It follows that living organisms must be organizable in a non-nested hierarchy, i.e., a tree of life that is mostly nested but with many non-nested exceptions. These exceptions are known in software design as multiple inheritance. The Darwinian hypothesis, by contrast, originally predicted a strictly non-nested hierarchy but had to do some furious backpedalling when it became clear from the genetic evidence that this was not the case. Mapou
Bob O'H at 16: I ran your list by someone who knows a bit of the background of BI, and their response was: -- He’s ducking the issue. He has many more than 5 collaborators. I can’t even say how many without looking up the papers themselves (when there are more than three they get listed as et al). So he needs to compare apples to apples. At the BI, 2 papers are divided by 5 people to his 8 papers divided by at least 23 people. If he wants to count apples. -- We'll see what he comes up with next. News
the researcher must first either believe that biological organisms are designed or else draw an inference to design based on evidence.
Wiki: Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made and re-producing it or reproducing anything based on the extracted information.
"I know where I came from — but where did all you zombies come from?"
How is reverse engineering of the brain done? Wikipedia defines reverse engineering as "the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made." The brain isn't man-made, but loosely speaking reverse engineering the brain implies figuring out how it works. (...) The process of reverse-engineering the cerebral tissue can be roughly divided into three distinct stages - data acquisition, modelling, and simulation. (...)
You are assuming anything biological is designed. I will even concede that for the argument.
What I believe has nothing to do with it. In order to apply reverse engineering to biology, the researcher must first either believe that biological organisms are designed or else draw an inference to design based on evidence. One can't reverse engineer something that hasn't been engineered. That should be obvious. A Darwinist cannot reverse engineer anything in biology because he doesn't believe that biological organisms are engineered. Again, this should be obvious.
Now, people have been figuring out how our bodily organs (the heart/circulation etc) worked for ages. Davinci had a go at it.
I have already explained that reverse engineering is not simply the process of figuring out how things work. It is the process of looking for design features in order to understand why it was designed that way. It is an attempt to think the designer's thoughts after him. Hence, the word "reverse."
I don’t know why you single out the brain, I would guess that significant advances in knowledge of the brain are fairly recent, but so what. ?
Why are you answering a question with a question? I asked you to defend your claim and provide evidence that the "ancients" applied reverse engineering to neuro-science?
In the end, you haven’t even attempted to answer my original question. Obfuscation, red herrings and oil-soaked, flaming straw men (sorry, been near KF too long).
On the contrary, I provided a very good answer. You simply ignored the point and changed the subject, as I knew you would. However, I can point to many other improvements that ID has made. Among other things, ID has exposed the hypocrisy and anti-scientific bias inherent in methodological naturalism. Meanwhile, you have still not answered my question. Can you show me how full scale Darwinian evolution has contributed anything at all to mankind? Since you are reluctant to answer questions, I will answer this one for you. Full scale Darwinian evolution has contributed absolutely nothing to the betterment of mankind. StephenB
SB: You are assuming anything biological is designed. I will even concede that for the argument. Now, people have been figuring out how our bodily organs (the heart/circulation etc) worked for ages. Davinci had a go at it. I don't know why you single out the brain, I would guess that significant advances in knowledge of the brain are fairly recent, but so what. ? In the end, you haven't even attempted to answer my original question. Obfuscation, red herrings and oil-soaked, flaming straw men (sorry, been near KF too long). I give up. Graham2
‘reverse engineering’ is just a fancy phrase to describe a process of investigation, but we can suppose that it is something special.
Reverse engineering is the process by which knowledge or design information is obtained from designed objects. What is it about the words “designed objects” that you do not understand?
The ancients were doing this a thousand years ago for gods sake.
Show me where the ancients applied the principles of reverse engineering to neuroscience. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your answer. Name one good thing that full-scale Darwinian evolution has done for mankind. StephenB
SB: 'reverse engineering' is just a fancy phrase to describe a process of investigation, but we can suppose that it is something special. The ancients were doing this a thousand years ago for gods sake. Now, what has ID given us ? Graham2
You can investigate anything … designed or not.
You can "investigate" all you like using whatever methods you like, but you cannot use the method of reverse engineering without design technology. Graham2
This has been done for ever, and owes nothing to the ID movement.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of reverse engineering and its relationship with design. It is not synonymous with "investigating," it is a particular kind of investigation. It cannot be reconciled with natural processes. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear from you on the subject of how Darwinian evolution has ever done anything for mankind. StephenB
Box: I asked first. The tenor of the thread is some sort of summary of a year in the life of ID, so it seems reasonable to ask what has ID achieved (even if its not offered). Lets suppose that Evolution achieved nothing, my question still stands: What has ID contributed ? Graham2
StephenB: Can you provide me with even one example of how Darwinian evolution grand scale ever contributed anything to anybody or anything, medical or otherwise?
Graham2: Uhm ... Uhm ... [*crickets*]
Here's a classic example. Dr. Ohno, coming from a Darwinist paradigm assumed that non-coding DNA must be “fossil” genes, non-functional leftovers from evolution. In other words, junk. The scientific community largely accepted this explanation. In contrast, the ID paradigm simply assumes that if something appears designed, it should be studied as if it were. In this case, ID would assume that there is an unknown purpose to this same DNA, and would study it as such. So far the ID position has been vindicated, leaving Darwinists to stubbornly defend their position on an ever-shrinking set of non-coding DNA as "junk." Now, pragmatically speaking, which paradigm hindered scientific progress in this example? Darwinism or ID? -Q Querius
SB: You can investigate anything ... designed or not. This has been done for ever, and owes nothing to the ID movement. My question still stands: What has ID contributed ? Put another way, what knowledge has ID created since its inception (1990?) that didn't exist before ? If you cant provide an answer, then I will provide one. Graham2
This they could have done with or without the help of ID.
No, they could not have done that. You can't reverse engineer something that wasn't engineered. --- "it is to deduce design features from products with little or no additional knowledge about the procedures involved in their original production." You have not yet told me what Darwinian evolution has ever contributed to mankind. StephenB
SB: This they could have done with or without the help of ID. Its exactly the same process of investigating anything ... figuring out how it works. If the term ID was never mentioned, we would be in exactly the same place. ID says 'its designed'. Has it said any more than that ? What results have been produced by ID that help us ? BA77 cant help. Can you ? Graham2
Could you summarise in a sentence or 2 (no more!) what ID has contributed to increase our understanding of the world
In a sentence or two??? OK. ID medical researchers and surgeons can reverse engineer the brain's design in order to assist in the diagnostic process. Darwinian evolution is totally useless in that context. Can you provide me with even one example of how Darwinian evolution grand scale ever contributed anything to anybody or anything, medical or otherwise? StephenB
Graham2, I was suppose to give a short summary because you are too lazy to read the original posts??? :) HMMM, can you please tell me exactly what law I would be breaking, and what the penalty would be, if I don't feel inclined to do so and tell you to go soak your head for expecting me to do so??? Other than that, Have a nice weekend! :) No Doubt - It's My Life - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubvV498pyIM bornagain77
BA77: You still haven't given us a short (!) summary of how ID has improved our understanding of the world around us. All your bloviating notwithstanding. Graham2
Aurelio Smith:
Nobody is demanding much from ID-proponents other than a coherent hypothesis with entailments that could at least in theory be falsified as:a minimum to permit consideration of “ID” as a scientific endeavor.
Unlike your position ID has done that. Obviously the issue is your willful ignorance. Joe
Aurelio Smith, the 'crazy man' gets up and leaves the bus because the 'sane person' who just tried to sit next to him has not the first clue what he is babbling about. bornagain77
Bob, my observation was that you are failing to address the issue on its merits. In fact, since there is NOT ONE paper in the entire vast library of Darwinian literature that experimentally substantiates the atheistic Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information/complexity, then the papers that ID has, papers experimentally confirming the impossibility of unguided processes to generate functional information/complexity, though they may be few in number, greatly exceed any experimental evidence Darwinism has on the subject. Thus, on relative merits, since you do not demand the same experimental standard for Darwinism as you do for ID on the primary question at the heart of the dispute between ID and Darwinism, you are guilty of hypocrisy in your judgment of the matter! bornagain77
Bob, you modestly state,,, “I never said that my papers were tackling the evolution vs ID debate so your criticisms are totally moot” Then would that not render any of your criticisms on papers dealing directly with the issues between ID and Darwinism moot as well?
Errr, no. I don't think one has to have published academic work on this area to make a contribution. In my original reply I was simply pointing out the apparent dearth of published research by the Biologic Institute, and giving some sort of baseline to compare it to. If you want to argue that one can't contribute to the ID/evolution debate unless you've published an academic paper on it first, then go ahead and tell BarryA, News, kairosfocus, Mapou, Joe, etc etc that their arguments are moot and can be ignored then go ahead. I'll prepare the popcorn. Bob O'H
sparc you ask, "How do you measure the quality of research?" To me, 'good science', in fact the best science there is, is when physicists try their damndest to falsify an axiomatic claim of a given theory and it passes with flying colors. For instance, the 120 standard deviation verification of Leggett's inequality would qualify as par excellence science in my book: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett's inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf How many h-factors would you give that particular falsification of materialistic claims sparc? ========= “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 bornagain77
Not to be less than impressed with all the h factor fanfare you are enamored with sparc (YAWN!), but can you cite the exact Darwinian paper that provides the exact experimental verification for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can create molecular machines? Or is that little detail a distant second to h-factors in your book? If so, your view of how science actually operates is severely distorted!
Maybe you should open your comments with "And now for something completely different", I was actually referring to your earlier comment in which you stated:
Excuse me Bob O’H, but you seem to be confusing quantity with quality.
How do you measure the quality of research? Let me guess: You just see it if something is good science. sparc
#23 bornagain77 Hey, bullying is not nice. :) Be polite to the poor interlocutors. Don't take advantage of their weak arguments. That's not fair. :) Dionisio
I wonder if the false prophets of Baal also had high 'H-factors' sparc? :) Not to be less than impressed with all the h factor fanfare you are enamored with sparc (YAWN!), but can you cite the exact Darwinian paper that provides the exact experimental verification for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can create molecular machines? Or is that little detail a distant second to h-factors in your book? If so, your view of how science actually operates is severely distorted! The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY Bob, you modestly state,,, "I never said that my papers were tackling the evolution vs ID debate so your criticisms are totally moot" Then would that not render any of your criticisms on papers dealing directly with the issues between ID and Darwinism moot as well? at least I now know that if I ever want to discuss the issue of,,, 'Facial morphology predicts male fitness and rank but not survival in Second World War Finnish soldiers,,,' I know where to find it.,,, Something tells me that I will be waiting a long time to reference that paper of yours though! :) No matter how highly it is rated by h-factors! The paper is simply 'stamp collecting' as far as I'm concerned!. bornagain77
ba77 - I never said that my papers were tackling the evolution vs ID debate so your criticisms are totally moot. Bob O'H
BA77, you may want to click on "citation metrics" at Bob's Researcher ID page. You'll find his H-factor there which is indeed quite good when one take into accont that he is not working in one of the fields considerered hot by Nature or Science. Can you provide the H-factors of Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Nelson, Wells and the "biological" work of Bob Marks? If their records cannot be found at Researcher ID you my try Reuter's Web of Science or Scopus (Google Scholar is not really reliable in this respect). In addition, which are the most often cited ID papers and often have they actally cited without being refuted in the very same citing article? Just name them and I will find out how often they have been cited. If you cannot get the numbers just list the titles ans I'll check how often they have been cited. sparc
Dionisio at 17, although I would quibble a bit on the foreign country thing, that is pretty much the situation in a nut shell. i.e. false positive evidence is attributed to Darwinism by adding evolution as a 'narrative gloss' in the literature: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/december-2014-events-that-made-a-difference-to-id/#comment-539864 bornagain77
Bob O'H congratulations on all your many new papers.
Bayesian model selection: The steepest mountain to climb,,, Population fluctuations affect inference in ecological networks of multi-species interactions,,, Quantifying range-wide variation in population trends from local abundance surveys and widespread opportunistic occurrence records,,, Shifts from native to invasive small mammals across gradients from tropical forest to urban habitat in Borneo,,, Southern high-latitude terrestrial climate change during the Palaeocene-Eocene derived from a marine pollen record ,,, Facial morphology predicts male fitness and rank but not survival in Second World War Finnish soldiers,,, Inferring host specificity and network formation through agent-based models: tick-mammal interactions in Borneo,,, http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?returnCode=ROUTER.Unauthorized&queryString=KG0UuZjN5WlhC%252F7JVHKdwgfZ6UIC1XNdQs6uVy7uh1c%253D&SrcApp=CR&Init=Yes
And what a mighty fine 'stamp collection' of scientific papers they are! Your Mom must be really proud of you!
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting." Ernest Rutherford - As quoted in Rutherford at Manchester (1962) by J. B. Birks
Excuse me Bob O'H, but you seem to be confusing quantity with quality. Moreover, I hold that none of the many papers which you are so proud to have your name on, or any of the many other papers in 'supposed' evolutionary literature, tackle the main issue Darwinism has with ID. That is to say, that nothing in the evolutionary literature shows us a single instance of unguided material processes creating a single molecular machine and/or sophisticated (non-trivial) functional information.
"The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new [...} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic these works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity." Prof. James Shapiro - “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.1996.Nat%27lReview.pdf also see M. Behe, "The First Rule", - 2010
Thus Bob O'H, of what any real use are any of the many papers that purportedly support Darwinian claims if they, in fact, do not demonstrate the primary Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can easily generate sophisticated functional complexity/information? Basically, without such an empirical demonstration that unguided material processes are up to the task that Darwinists claim for them, we are dealing with thousands, upon thousands, of papers in the evolutionary literature that simply assume Darwinism is true with never a single paper demonstrating that it is even remotely feasible as far as physical reality itself is concerned. The situation is very much reminicent of Elijah's confrontation with of the 100's of prophets of Baal.
1 Kings 18:27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry 8aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.” Elijah And The Prophets Of Baal http://www.padfield.com/2000/elijah.html
So is your god of random mutation and natural selection sleeping Bob O'H? If so, exactly how do we awaken this mighty and awesome god that created all the wondrous, and unfathomed, complexities we are finding in life?
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm (Non-Local) Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video https://vimeo.com/92405752
If [name] is part of a large group, and gets his name appended to [some] papers produced by that group, he could have [n] papers. No single [serious] researcher can turn out that many [serious papers] at a time by himself. Not in biology.
My European and Canadian friends who are scientists, have told me similar stories occurring in their areas. Some (not all) of them are in biology research. Dionisio
News and BA77 Would you consider that most of the useful papers you all can refer to are produced by many serious researchers in labs located in different countries? Aren't they shedding light on the elaborate molecular/cellular choreographies that are orchestrated in the biological systems? Aren't those research papers making computer scientists and electronic engineers be in awe at the sight of the amazing systems they describe? Perhaps still some of those papers use 'pseudoscientific' terminology scattered within the text, just to be politically correct or by tradition or maybe in some cases even by conviction, but that's fine. Just strike or skip those misleading terms. The core of those papers are valuable in many cases. Does this make sense? Dionisio
News - my list of papers is here. Most of it is done in collaboration, but I'm only one person, whereas the Biologic Institute is much larger than me. I'd also point out that the BI is "a large group", so I'd expect it to be producing many more papers than I do. If the list is only of select publications, can you get a complete list of publications from them? Bob O'H
Bob O'H at 3, I ran your comments by a researcher who said, "If Bob O H is part of a large group, and gets his name appended to all papers produced by that group he could have 8 papers. No single researcher can turn out that many at a time by himself. Not in biology." On the other hand, you could be unusually productive. You may perhaps be willing to provide a list of the papers. In any event, it seems that the Biologic Institute list contains only some of the publications of some of the fellows ("a selected list") - presumably the ones of most general interest to readers and supporters. News
Well by golly Graham2, you are finally on to our scam. We are hiding everything from you and everybody else. :) (such as me hiding post 8 right in plain sight like I did :) ) Thank goodness everybody who is really, really, smart (i.e. like atheists who deny they even have a mind in the first place) knows that cells are not really designed at all and that there is not one shred of evidence for it, and therefore it is completely useless to study biology from the design perspective and that it is crucial to approach molecular biology as if everything is just a kludge of filtered accidents,, (or NOT!):
Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell - book - Dennis Bray Description - In clear, jargon-free language, Dennis Bray taps the findings of the new discipline of systems biology to show that the internal chemistry of living cells is a form of computation. Cells are built out of molecular circuits that perform logical operations, as electronic devices do, but with unique properties. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0300167849 Researchers study code that allows bacteria to either bet on the present or travel in time - April 22, 2013 Excerpt: Experimental studies have revealed dozens of regulatory genes, signaling proteins and other genetic tools that cells use to gather information and communicate with one another.,,, Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical "tweets" and performs a sophisticated decision-making process using a specialized complex gene network comprised of many genes connected via complex circuitry.,,, "The ingenuity is that at each oscillation the cell also sends 'chemical tweets' to inform the other cells about its stress and attempt to escape,",,, "The tweets sent by others help regulate the circuits of their neighbors and guarantee that no more than a specific fraction of cells within the colony will enter into competence." http://phys.org/news/2013-04-code-bacteria.html Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) - video Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon - Charles H. Bennett - September 2003 Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521980300039X
Here is, according to a Darwinist, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart:
ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Picture http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkRRa65sIo/TlltZupczfI/AAAAAAAAE1s/nVSv_5HRpZg/s1600/pathway-1b.png
No, you would be shoving it in my face. As would Barry, KF, etc etc etc. Screaming it from the rooftops. You don't really think they would hide it, do you ? Graham2
ahh Graham2,,, I'm not into force feeding the unwilling, i.e. 'shoving it in your face'. Puddle Of Mud - take it all away - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ50Ymf4l2M bornagain77
BA77: Still having trouble with the question-answer thing aren't you ? If ID had actually contributed anything you would be the first to shove it in my face. Graham2
Graham2, actually I did not write my reply for you to read since I knew you would not read it. (i.e. been there, done that!), I wrote it for the unbiased readers of UD to show them that your argument had absolutely no merit whatsoever. Happy New Year! bornagain77
BA77: I read just the 1st sentence of your reply, long enough to see that you had ignored my question, then proceed with the usual rant, which I ignore. Could you summarise in a sentence or 2 (no more!) what ID has contributed to increase our understanding of the world ? Graham2
And far from being a bygone relic from days gone by, the presupposition of Intelligent Design, instead of being a roadblock to scientific research as Darwinism currently is, continues to provide a fruitful catalyst for scientific discovery. Especially in regards to biological research:
"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html podcast - "How the Latest Findings in Molecular Biology Support Intelligent Design, pt. 1" - Oct. 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-10-22T17_50_39-07_00 "How the Latest Findings in Molecular Biology Support Intelligent Design, pt. 2" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-10-24T15_21_17-07_00
As to society at large, from Josh McDowell's book, 'Evidence for Christianity', in giving examples of the positive influence of Jesus Christ on society, cites many examples of Christianity’s positive influence on the world. Here are just a few:
1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life Early Christian Opposition to Infanticide Excerpt: "Infanticide was common in all well studied ancient cultures, including those of ancient Greece, Rome, India, China, and Japan."(It even led to the collapse of some ancient cultures),,, From its earliest creeds, Christians "absolutely prohibited" infanticide as "murder." Stark, op. cit., page 124. To Christians, the infant had value. Whereas pagans placed no value on infant life, Christians treated them as human beings. They viewed infanticide as the murder of a human being, not a convenient tool to rid society of excess females and perceived weaklings. The baby, whether male, female, perfect, or imperfect, was created in the image of God and therefore had value. http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html Jesus, contrary what many people currently seem to believe, instead of ‘shackling women’ and making them subordinate to men, greatly elevated the status and respect of women in society! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_interactions_with_women
Verse and Music:
Matthew 7:17-19 "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." Mandisa - Esther - Born For This - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo
Moreover, Darwinian reasoning, to the extent it has influenced popular imagination, has had a tremendous negative impact on society at large:
The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU How Darwin's Theory Changed the World - Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm The Biology of the Second Reich: Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n900e80R30 From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html
In fact, Darwinists even lack the ethical moorings necessary to condemn the holocaust as objectively evil:
Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html
But, despite all these severe failings of Darwinian thought, Graham2 originally asked
Has ID given us any knowledge that improves our understanding of the world ?
Well contrary to what Graham2 may believe, it can be forcefully argued that the presuppostion of intelligent design drove the founding of modern science itself:
(Christian Founders of Modern Science) The Scientific Revolution (1600–1715) by Jeffery Donley, Ph.D. http://www.netplaces.com/bible-history/the-founders-of-modern-science/the-scientific-revolution-16001715.htm I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel 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." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. 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." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_ Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis (in fact, via quantum teleportation, material ultimately reduces to a information basis) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
In fact, the axiomatic claims of other scientific theories are tested against all the time, (such as the axiomatic claim in General Realtivity that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass are the same in any frame of reference). These axiomatic claims of 'hard' scientific theories are regulary tested against to greater and greated levels of accuracy so as to establish the veracity of these 'hard' scientific theories to greater and greater levels of certainty. But Darwinism simply has no rigidly defined axiomatic claim of the sort to test against.,,,
“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
,,,Whatever scientific finding comes along, even completely contradictory findings, are 'explained away' with equal vigor by Darwinism, without any trace of intellectual embarrassment on the part of Darwinists.
"Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. - Evolution explains everything. -" William J Murray "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Dr. Cornelius Hunter
In fact, besides the fact that neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science which has certainly not 'given us any knowledge that improves our understanding of the world', to the extent that Darwinism has influenced science, medical diagnostics, and even society at large, Darwinism has had a tremendous negative impact. In science, this negative impact is clearly illustrated by the recent fiasco over the ENCODE findings. Findings which found pervasive functionality across practically the entire genome, and thus severely questioning the Darwinian presumption of widespread Junk DNA across the genome.
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html Biological Information – (The Dan Graur incident) Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVk
Of related note:
Matheson's Intron Fairy Tale - Richard Sternberg - June 2010 Excerpt: "The failure to recognize the importance of introns "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." --John Mattick, Molecular biologist, University of Queensland, quoted in Scientific American,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/mathesons_intron_fairy_tale035301.html On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. - Richard Sternberg - 2002 Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679
As well, in Medical diagnostics, we find Darwinian explanations are 'worthless':
Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011 Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html How Does Modern Medicine Depend on Darwinism? Tom Bethell - November 24, 2014 Excerpt:
,,,"roughly two-thirds of Americans reject this view of evolution, which undergirds all of modern medicine and the life sciences." - E.O. Wilson - The Meaning of Human Existence
“Undergirds all of modern medicine”? I wonder if Sanders or anyone else can provide, as an example, one modern medical opinion that would be shown to be false if it were generally accepted that bodies are designed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/how_does_modern091451.html
In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent Darwinian reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
Graham2, you asked at post 1:
Has ID made any progress ? Has ID given us any knowledge that improves our understanding of the world ? Pointing at stuff that looks vaguely pro-ID isn’t it.
Graham2, that is a fair question. And in answering that question it also fair to ask if Darwinism has given us any knowledge that improves our understanding of the world ? And the answer to that question is that Darwinism has NOT given us any knowledge that improves our understanding of the world. In fact Darwinism has had a dramatic negative impacts on both our science, (i.e. our understanding of the world), and on societies as a whole. Dr. Jonathan Wells points out at the 4:32 minute mark of the following video, Darwinism has NOT, in its entire history, contributed anything to science.
Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWb8BaXoRc
Jonthan Wells is not alone in his assessment. In spite of the fact that materialists/atheists like to claim Darwinism is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in biology, in a article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, the following expert author finds neo-Darwinism to be superfluous to conducting research and has never led to way to any significant breakthroughs.
“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.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
The late Dr. Skell is not alone in his observation that Darwinism is a superfluous ‘narrative gloss’ that is added on after breakthroughs are made:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).
Even the staunch atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, agrees that Darwinism does not guide biological research, (apparently not even his own research in discovering the structure of DNA),
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is almost always falsely attributed to Darwinian evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a ‘narrative gloss’ in peer-reviewed literature:
Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY
Here are a few more examples of Darwinists falsely attributing positive evidence to Neo-Darwinism after a finding is made, i.e. adding it as a ‘narrative gloss’ instead of a true explanation,
Like a Grandfather Clock: The Splicesome’s Intricate Dance of Parts – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: Like a late-model SUV equipped with a buggy whip, this was an elegant design article carrying unnecessary baggage. Intelligent design did the work. Evolution, as a useless narrative gloss, adds mass but no force. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/like_a_grandfat086791.html It’s Optimal. It Must Have Evolved! – August 16, 2014 Excerpt: These (optimal) solutions “have been arrived at” — by design? No; read the last sentence in the paper: “It is appealing that one might look to biology for insights into solutions of hard optimization problems, arrived at as a result of evolution within an information niche.” Evolution did it. Give evolution the engineering design award. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/its_optimal_it089031.html Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase “Design Principles” – November 28, 2014 Excerpt: The word “design” appears 24 times in the paper. “Selection” appears twice, in the phrase “selective pressure” (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word “evolution” appears just once:,,, We see, therefore, that “design” references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find “machine” or “machinery” four times, “coding” or “encoding” 15 times, “information” (in terms of information to be processed) five times, “accurate” (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, “precision” 29 times, “efficient” four times, and “optimal” or “optimum” 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1. Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,, The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, “Yep, it’s fit. It’s optimal.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/biologists_are091531.html
In fact, unlike other hard sciences (including ID), Darwinism does not have a 'hard core' that can be tested against. i.e. A 'hard core' to test against so as to potentially falsify Darwinian claims by experimentation:
A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? - Paul Gosselin Excerpt:
"once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” - Imre Lakatos
So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk
Happy New Year, all. Mrs O'L, one for Ripley's believe it or not Dept: http://www.derfmagazine.com/news/business/143.html So, there. Read the article to see how the knockoff is suing the original to cease and desist. Only in C21 . . . ? But of course, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so we can take back-handed comfort in the attempts to denigrate. No answer on substance so resort to the dirty tricks dept. KF PS: Satire . . . kairosfocus
Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can't see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas. As for the Biologic Institute, they list 4 publications from 2014, 2 of them in Bio-Complexity: in the same time period I published 8 papers. That's really not a lot for the investment put in: there are 5 people listed as working at the Biologic Institute: 3 of them are on one paper from this year, the other 3 papers are by members with affiliations elsewhere. Over the last couple of years the results seem similar. Frankly, any research institute should be able to do better than 1 paper for every 5 scientific staff. Bob O'H
Graham, if you don't think an understanding of information theory improves one's understanding of the world (as great physicists did), we are not sure what to suggest. You could, of course, hang out with the “aren’t I good?” girls. For others (no need to bother Graham2): The very slow, gradual decline of active persecution by Darwin's hordes will greatly assist study of nature as she really is. The Biologic Institute is a good source for now. Of course, the hordes will continue to do everything in their power to prevent research, and then claim there is not much of it. News
Has ID made any progress ? Has ID given us any knowledge that improves our understanding of the world ? Pointing at stuff that looks vaguely pro-ID isn't it. Graham2

Leave a Reply