Intelligent Design

Evolution is a Big Word, Part 1: Is There a Consensus?

Spread the love

A recent article was released which talks about the many theories of evolution. The article is a good introduction to the variety of evolutionary theories that different people think – both inside and outside of ID. I wanted to talk about several aspects of that article in separate posts here on UD.

The first aspect I wanted to talk about is this – is there really a consensus on evolution? Here’s the quote from the article I especially want to discuss:

In the debate over origins, there has been such an effort to paint science as being decidedly evolutionary that the actual interesting details of the question get lost. What does one mean by evolution? Is evolution a sequence or a mechanism? If it is a mechanism, what is the mechanism? If two people disagree on both the sequence and the mechanism, to what extent should their opinions be taken to represent the same idea? Might there be fascinating ideas which are not being heard simply because they are being pushed into the background of the overly generalized term “evolution?”

The part in bold is especially what I want to discuss. There are numerous different ideas for the sequences of which organisms came before or followed which other organisms. There are also numerous different ideas for the mechanisms by which this might have happened. If any sequence and any mechanism can be considered “evolution”, then what does the word evolution even mean? If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”? If it means anything more than “materialism”, how can it be a consensus if the mechanism and the sequence aren’t agreed upon?

70 Replies to “Evolution is a Big Word, Part 1: Is There a Consensus?

  1. 1
    Geoxus says:

    Is evolution a sequence or a mechanism?

    I don’t recall any biologist saying evolution is a “sequence”. To the contrary, that sounds like the popular “great chain of being” misconception, if the author meant something akin to “phylogeny”. Or perhaps he meant a sequence of events?

    English words ending in “-tion” (e.g. “correction”, “duplication”, “conversation”) usually mean both the action and the effect of something. It happens as well with other words like “design”. I think this is hardly ever ambiguous.

    If two people disagree on both the sequence and the mechanism, to what extent should their opinions be taken to represent the same idea?

    The concept of evolution is more general than that. Big concepts are always tricky, but I think “evolution” can be put very simply as “change in inheritable properties of organisms over time”. “Change”, again, means both the action and the effect. Diversification and universal common ancestry are thus corollaries of the general concept of evolution.

    Compare “the evolution of arthropods” to “the history of Rome”. There are disagreements on how both happened in terms of events and causes (or “sociological mechanisms”, if you like), but it’s not that hard to understand what both mean (if it is, it’s probably because of different conceptions of “Rome” and “Arthropoda”).

    If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”?

    Probably the media is more “confused” about what “ID” means (I’ve heard many different conceptions of this term as well). As you put it, it sounds like a brand of dualism. I thought that, in strict sense, materialism and ID were not mutually exclusive. Weren’t aliens an option?

  2. 2
    Geoxus says:

    By the way, johnnyb, are you Jonathan Bartlett?

    Bartlett is the author of the article quoted on this post as a “good introduction”, and “Bartlett Publishing” is the website that appears as yours here on UD.

  3. 3
    DrREC says:

    If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”?

    Does that mean that I can ask what ID even means except anti-materialism?

    By the way, I would argue the opposite. Most versions of ID that anyone here are defending are “designed to evolve” or “frontloading” or “ID=common descent” notions. Pretty much theistic evolution when boiled down.

    Now cue a hundred comments from the some folks who just told me that ID isn’t against evolution or common descent!

  4. 4
    johnnyb says:

    I don’t recall any biologist saying evolution is a “sequence”. To the contrary, that sounds like the popular “great chain of being” misconception, if the author meant something akin to “phylogeny”. Or perhaps he meant a sequence of events?

    Sequence of organisms is the intended meaning. For instance, many people say, “we win because we have the fossils”. However, the most evidence that fossils could give are evidence of sequence, not of mechanism. I can say “fossil X is below fossil Y”, but that doesn’t give a mechanism of evolution. However, even with the fossils, there is an argument over sequence. Is the bottom of the tree a tree or an intertwined network of roots? Did land animals happen once or multiple times? Did birds come from dinosaurs or something else? All of this questioning is done relatively independent of mechanism, so, as I pointed out, one can disagree about *both* sequence *and* mechanism, but still be considered part of the consensus.

    I think “evolution” can be put very simply as “change in inheritable properties of organisms over time”.

    But that’s just the issue. This is agreed to by all sides. There is no one on the face of the earth who disagrees with this concept. If this is the definition of evolution, then there is no such thing as an anti-evolution group.

    Compare “the evolution of arthropods” to “the history of Rome”. There are disagreements on how both happened in terms of events and causes (or “sociological mechanisms”, if you like), but it’s not that hard to understand what both mean (if it is, it’s probably because of different conceptions of “Rome” and “Arthropoda”).

    This is true, except that there is a group of people (we’ll just label them the NCSE for a convenient label, but it extends well beyond them) who think that if one holds a certain conception of the history of Rome, that it makes them anti-history. For instance, (NOTE – I know nothing about Roman history, so just take these examples with a grain of salt), let’s say a history supposes breaks to the continuity of the Roman empire. Does that lend credence to someone else calling them anti-history?

    Which is precisely my point. If evolution is just a general term thrown around without any real significance, then there literally is not anti-evolution crowd. If you take it to mean something more specific, then any attempt to use “consensus” language about it falls apart.

    As you put it, it sounds like a brand of dualism. I thought that, in strict sense, materialism and ID were not mutually exclusive. Weren’t aliens an option?

    Most ID’ers are dualistic, and, at least my conception of ID goes hand-in-hand with dualism. That is different than the question of whether or not aliens were an option for the designer. As an example, there are atheistic dualists (or at minimum non-materialists). For such people, one could be an ID’er, even without the notion of God. Other people are pantheists, in which they put the teleology in the *universe* itself. Whether you consider these people theists or not, or whether you consider the design (which would be the universe, or parts of the universe) as God, is a matter of definitions.

  5. 5
    johnnyb says:

    Yes I am! Did you enjoy the article?

  6. 6
    johnnyb says:

    “Does that mean that I can ask what ID even means except anti-materialism?”

    I would say that ID is largely non-materialism. I don’t think that anyone has been quiet about that.

    “Pretty much theistic evolution when boiled down.”

    It depends. While you could reasonably apply the term “theistic evolution” to a number of beliefs (including creationism – I know that YEC Kurt Wise was once introduced by an evolutionist as being a theistic evolutionist!). However, the term “theistic evolution” as it is currently applied (by biologos and others) usually means “theistic Darwinism”.

    But, as I point out in the article (you should take the time to read it), creationists don’t necessarily differ with evolutionists in their view of the mechanisms of evolution (I do – but that’s not a necessary characteristic of creationism). I’ve been working to interest the creation community in the work done in ID precisely because I feel that creationism (both OEC and YEC) is overly-committed to Darwinism at the evolutionary mechanism.

    Now, few people would claim that ID is equivalent with common descent (which is not technically evolution as it is the origin of life), but I claim instead that it is compatible with common descent. I disagree with common descent (as do many in the ID movement), but ID itself (i.e. the idea that life is the result of design instead of pure materialism) doesn’t on its own presuppose one way or the other.

    To see more detail about the arguments about ID, the origin of life, and common descent, I will refer you to these articles:

    The separability (or non-separability) of abiogenesis and evolution (note that my formulation of the topic has changed since writing this – basically, the article argues for their inseparability. However, if instead you take their separability as a given, then it becomes evident that common descent is based not on evolution, but abiogenesis, and therefore, evolution is perfectly compatible with all forms of creationism)

    ID and Common Descent

    A Convergence between ID and Biologos

    In Defense of Frontloading

  7. 7
    DrREC says:

    So my response to the query “Evolution is a Big Word, Part 1: Is There a Consensus?” would be ID/Creationism: Is there a consensus?

    And the answer to the latter seems to be a resounding no.

    “creationists don’t necessarily differ with evolutionists in their view of the mechanisms of evolution ”

    “I claim instead that it [ID] is compatible with common descent”

    Funny thing is how often this site repeats the evolution=materialism=atheism, and then backtracks to say ID has no problem with evolution of common descent or materialist science. How very hard to fathom.

  8. 8
    Sonfaro says:

    Theres a couple of different people on this site DrREC, with different opinions about “Evolution”.

    But you know that already. 😉

  9. 9
    johnnyb says:

    “And the answer to the latter seems to be a resounding no.”

    You would be correct! However, it is ID that promotes academic freedom, while it is the Darwinists (such as the NCSE) who want to close down debate and claim a consensus. The ones doing the bullying are almost entirely Darwinian groups such as the NCSE and to a lesser extent biologos.

    “Funny thing is how often this site repeats the evolution=materialism=atheism, and then backtracks to say ID has no problem with evolution of common descent or materialist science.”

    I think you just haven’t understood the argument. “evolution” in popular parlance means Darwinism. However, when someone (like the NCSE) says, “well, evolution is a consensus in science”, they are usually trying to have it both ways – to claim victory for Darwinism, but use the more general meaning of “evolution” to claim consensus. This is why I always like to hammer down the meaning of evolution. If you mean it narrowly, then ID can be anti-evolutionary. But when you define it narrowly, you can’t say that there is a consensus.

    Likewise, there is not an in-theory problem with methodological materialism (though I disagree that it is a good approach). The philosophy of science tells us that we can aim for any two of the following: (a) completeness, (b) methodological purity, and (c) realism. So, you can aim for completeness and methodological purity, but then you must sacrifice any claims to realism. If you want to include completeness *and* realism, you must forego methodological purity. you can even have methodological purity and realism, but then you have understand that this limits the completeness of the method, and one must go outside the method to know where the boundaries lie.

    Philosophical materialism grasps at all three. There are many who *claim* *methodological* materialism, but then grasp at all three segments, thereby proving that they are in fact philosophical materialists, but don’t want to admit it.

  10. 10
    DrREC says:

    I’d say there is a resounding agreement that is it bad, and must be defeated, until it is convenient, or too well demonstrated to defeat.

    Same for methodological naturalism.

    How you rail against naturalism, until it is really nice and convenient.

    Simple example: Behe, in his Chloroquine resistance cluster evolution assumes a designer isn’t reversing the mutations (or generating them) in his calculation of where the “edge of evolution” lies. He makes metaphysical assumptions of non-interference, no front-loading against the evolution of CCC, oberservability, and that his observations apply to a consistant world.

    I do the same in my science, and you cry atheism. Curious.

  11. 11
    DrREC says:

    “If you mean it narrowly, then ID can be anti-evolutionary. But when you define it narrowly, you can’t say that there is a consensus.”

    Thanks for admitting you’re willing to bullshit your way into having it both ways.

  12. 12
    DrREC says:

    “The philosophy of science tells us that we can aim for any two of the following: (a) completeness, (b) methodological purity, and (c) realism. ”

    Cornelius Hunter tells us that.

    If we define science as what limited to the natural, than (c) is irrelevant, or to a philosophical naturalist, imaginary.

  13. 13
    johnnyb says:

    I don’t see that – if you define terms differently – they mean different things, and therefore have different implications. Is that really so hard to understand?

  14. 14
    Sonfaro says:

    @DrREC,

    I don’t think people think ‘Evolution’ is bad (save maybe the few YEC who post here), just Darwins variant of it.

    also:

    I do the same in my science, and you cry atheism. Curious.

    I do? I don’t think you and I have had a conversation so if I have it wasn’t my intent.

  15. 15
    DrREC says:

    “I don’t see that – if you define terms differently – they mean different things, and therefore have different implications. Is that really so hard to understand?”

    Perfectly clear. And you and yours will use whatever definition is convenient.

    I’ll comment further if you define: ID, evolution, frontloading.

  16. 16
    johnnyb says:

    Why is (c) irrelevant? Many people (myself specifically) are interested in what is true. If you allow science to include untrue ideas for the sake of purity, what is the point? I can see other reasons to include untrue ideas (i.e. teachability of the true ideas – simplifications and the sort), but I don’t see why one would enforce methodological purity at the expense of truth.

    But, even if you did, then there would be no reason to even disagree with people who said that what you were saying isn’t true. You should simply agree that it probably isn’t true, but that it simply conforms to the method.

    On the other hand, I hope for a science that satisfies (a) and (c). I think we will find interesting methodologies along the way, but I think we are foolish if we confine ourselves to any. I think a science that performs (b) and (c) is also useful, but in that case science ceases to be the pinnacle of the human achievement and merely becomes one pursuit among many. As I said, I can’t see any good reason for choosing (b) over and above (c).

  17. 17
    DrREC says:

    @DrREC,

    “I don’t think people think ‘Evolution’ is bad (save maybe the few YEC who post here), just Darwins variant of it.”

    Maybe it is the beer consumed during the superbowl, but I literally can’t parse that phrase.

    Evolution isn’t bad. Just the (150 year old) version of the guy who came up with it. ???

  18. 18
    DrREC says:

    Define completeness.

    Are you proposing a science that investigates the supernatural?

    Propose a hypothesis and experiment, that is compete, and realist. (a&c)

  19. 19
    johnnyb says:

    Here is the way I would define the terms.

    My Definition of ID: The study of agency as a distinctive mode of causation

    My Definition of Evolution: The study of the way organisms change over time

    My Definition of frontloading: The idea that organisms contain or contained information which assisted or directed their evolutionary pathways (by *directed* I mean towards a specific end, by *assisted* I mean aiding in survival)

  20. 20
    johnnyb says:

    Here’s one that’s presently under investigation. Empirical studies so far have shown that humans can solve the Traveling Salesman Problem in linear time when adding additional nodes. If this is proven to be the case generally, then that means that the human mind is beyond computation. It also means that such is readily assessable (since we are quantifying the rate at which a solution can be found), even though it is non-material (i.e. non-computable).

    It should be noted that pretty much every major advance in physics has occurred when physics broke its own previous methodological rules and incorporated more ideas from theology. I don’t doubt that this will continue in the future.

  21. 21
    Sonfaro says:

    Darwin didn’t come up with Evolution. There were evolutionists before him (I’m pretty sure his dad was one). He’s the first to propose an actual scientific argument for it in writing though (as far as I know).

    There are lots of theories of Evolution DrREC. Alfred Russel Wallace had a varient. Apparently that Shapiro guy and Mar-something lady have newer ones too (can’t remember her name. Half asleep) You know this. Or at least you should. Darwins version is the most popular and the one most are taught in schools, but it isn’t the only one.

    That life adapts and changes into new things isn’t hated. Just one theory of how it happens.

  22. 22
    DrREC says:

    Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years, and describe to me how is incorporates an idea from theology, and was demonstrated in a non-methodologically empiricist manner.

    Or

    Propose a hypothesis and experiment, that is compete, and realist. (a&c)

  23. 23
    DrREC says:

    By the way, ants can “solve” the traveling salesman problem by shooting smelly substances out of their butts. So can a kindergardener with a piece of string. The question is the algorithmic solution. Non-material (supernatural) is not equatable with non-computational.

    Marco Dorigo. Ant Colonies for the Traveling Salesman Problem. IRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1):53–66. 1997

  24. 24
    Geoxus says:

    Sequence of organisms is the intended meaning. For instance, many people say, “we win because we have the fossils”. However, the most evidence that fossils could give are evidence of sequence, not of mechanism. I can say “fossil X is below fossil Y”, but that doesn’t give a mechanism of evolution. However, even with the fossils, there is an argument over sequence. Is the bottom of the tree a tree or an intertwined network of roots? Did land animals happen once or multiple times? Did birds come from dinosaurs or something else?

    So you meant phylogeny, which is the branching pattern, not “sequence”. The specific phylogeny of life on Earth is an aspect of evolutionary history, not a part of evolutionary theory. Theory deals with (but not only) mechanisms, the phylogeny of life is what the theory aims to explain. Explanans et explanandum, it’s not really that obscure.

    But that’s just the issue. This is agreed to by all sides. There is no one on the face of the earth who disagrees with this concept. If this is the definition of evolution, then there is no such thing as an anti-evolution group.

    If the expression is to be taken literally, yes. But it’s just common sense “anti-evolution” is short for “anti-some consequences and findings of evolutionary theory”.

    This is true, except that there is a group of people (we’ll just label them the NCSE for a convenient label, but it extends well beyond them) who think that if one holds a certain conception of the history of Rome, that it makes them anti-history.

    Well, I’d have no problem in calling “anti-history” some crackpot ideas about history, like the extraterrestrial origin of Egyptian pyramids or the denial of the Holocaust. That’s not just yet another take on history, it is a damaging one, one that fails to cope with the standards of actual historical research.

    Most ID’ers are dualistic, and, at least my conception of ID goes hand-in-hand with dualism. That is different than the question of whether or not aliens were an option for the designer.

    The idea was not aliens-as-a-tool, but aliens as the designers themselves. The designer must be immaterial? I know people here strongly suggest that, but I don’t know whether ID is formally committed to a conception of intelligence as a non-physical phenomenon.

  25. 25
    DrREC says:

    I’m unaware of Darwin’s father’s theory of evolution. Do you have a reference?

    But anyway, you’re quite right. For the purposes of this site, Evolution sometimes = Darwin, which always means the hated theory behind that change.

    But sometimes, it is the obvious fact you all acknowledge.

    And other times, it is the observation your theories (front-loading) try to account for.

  26. 26
    johnnyb says:

    “The idea was not aliens-as-a-tool, but aliens as the designers themselves”

    Right. That’s what I was saying. As long as we don’t presuppose the aliens be material, then there is no problem. Just as I don’t presuppose that humans are entirely material.

    I would say that, whether or not ID’ers themselves are committed to designers being non-material, the conception itself requires it.

    “one that fails to cope with the standards of actual historical research”

    I can see that position. But in that case I would say that the Darwinian conception of evolution would be more anti-evolutionary than ID. It fails on the evidence and on the logic, and the problems have been known in Darwin’s day since Mivart proposed his problem of incipient structures.

  27. 27
    Geoxus says:

    It doesn’t look well to quote an article and fail to mention you’re the author as well.

    I did not enjoy it. You’re confused, as I explained above.

  28. 28
    DrREC says:

    Mivart? Basically asking why a proto-eye is any good? Because even a light sensing patch is superior to none for phototaxis, sensing predator’s shadow’s etc.

    Do you hang your belief on that?

    Funny historical side note-Darwin and Mivart had a falling out over Mivart quotemining-taking bits of sentences out of context. He then accused Darwin’s son of sexual deviancy for suggesting the legitimacy of divorce in cases of abuse. Parallels.

  29. 29
    Geoxus says:

    Much of what that XIX century gentleman thought is certainly wrong. His research however, must be evaluated in the context of his times. Darwin was certainly not a crackpot and he did advance significantly our knowledge of evolution.

    If by “Darwinism” you meant anything else than the thought of the historical Charles Darwin, I don’t know what it is. The term has become almost meaningless these days. I would note, however, that “anti-evolution” would be an outrageously bad take on evolution, not one that’s merely bad or wrong.

  30. 30
    Geoxus says:

    You’re again confusing theory with its subject matter.

  31. 31
    johnnyb says:

    “Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years”

    Why? Is this the inquisition and I have to appeal to the magisterium? Why the last 25 years? Are we really that pushed around by intellectual fashion? Am I also wearing white shoes after labor day?

    “Propose a hypothesis and experiment”

    I have already. But I should also note that the requirement of an “experiment” is (b). In fact, evolutionists themselves have had to redefine what it means to do an “experiment” in order to get evolution qualified as an “experimental science”. Mayr himself developed an entirely different approach to experiment (which would be wholly unrecognizable to a physicist) for use in evolutionary biology. (see Mayr’s “Towards a New Philosophy of Biology”).

    “By the way, ants can “solve” the traveling salesman problem by shooting smelly substances out of their butts.”

    The question is, can they do it in a way which surpasses computational possibilities (i.e. a linear increase in time for each added point). If so, then why is it hard to imagine that other parts of life include the immaterial? There are many schools of philosophy which include this. Panpsychism and other philosophies suppose that there is a spiritual underbelly to the whole of the universe. Many theists hold that life is fundamentally spiritual first. Vitalists hold that biology is primarily spiritual (by the way, vitalism is not dead — they have found a temporary hideout in the “metabolism-first” theory of the origin of life).

    “Non-material (supernatural) is not equatable with non-computational.”

    If that isn’t the case, then non-material has no meaning. What other criteria would there be to distinguish the two?

  32. 32
    Sonfaro says:

    I’m unaware of Darwin’s father’s theory of evolution. Do you have a reference?

    But anyway, you’re quite right. For the purposes of this site, Evolution sometimes = Darwin, which always means the hated theory behind that change.

    But sometimes, it is the obvious fact you all acknowledge.

    And other times, it is the observation your theories (front-loading) try to account for.

    1st, on the pre-darwin evolution: It was his grandfather, Erasmus that I heard was an evolutionist before Darwin wrote his book. Not his dad. My apologies for being misleading.

    I didn’t originally get it from here, but this site seems to confirm my suspicions.

    http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml

    I’ll look for more citations tomorrow-later, I have to sleep.

    As for the rest of this…Maybe it’s the beer talking dude, but are you being difficult on purpose?

    The broad theory(s) of evolution are not what most people on this site are annoyed by. Just one version. This isn’t rocket science. Remember how interested everyone was when Shapiro came out with his idea(s)? It was still sorta naturalist from what I remember reading (wasn’t paying it too much attention, sorry) but it was new and exciting and people were taking an interest to it. At least that’s what I noticed.

    Anyway, I think you’re… I guess it’s equivocating all of ‘Evolution’ with ‘Darwinian Evolution’. And I don’t know why. Football is not all of Sports, but in America it’s the biggest. Likewise, Darwins theory isn’t all of evolutionary theory, though it certainly is the most popular.

  33. 33
    johnnyb says:

    Geoxus –

    By “Darwinism” I mean exactly what the evolutionary biology literature means by it – that the primary force of evolution is happenstance changes which are promoted in the population through natural selection. This is precisely how it is used in microbiology and genetics. It is also often referred to as the modern synthesis. A good start to the discussion would be this paper (and you might be interested in my response).

  34. 34
    johnnyb says:

    Why? I usually like to assess articles on the basis of their content, not who their author is.

    Now, if you cite yourself as an *authority*, that’s a different story – that is a problem. My intention was to point to the article’s argument, in which case it doesn’t matter if it was written by me, a Nobel Laureate, or a third grader – the point is to judge it on the argument’s merits.

  35. 35
    Maus says:

    Geoxus:

    Big concepts are always tricky, but I think “evolution” can be put very simply as “change in inheritable properties of organisms over time”.

    We already teach sex-ed in school. It happens in a class called ‘sex-ed’. If the ‘big concept’ is that sex theoretically happens then perhaps you should try life away from the internet for a while. Just sayin’.

    So you meant phylogeny, which is the branching pattern, not “sequence”. The specific phylogeny of life on Earth is an aspect of evolutionary history, not a part of evolutionary theory.

    The ‘specific’ phylogeny of line of Earth is dictated by an a priori decision that we ought represent trees as binary trees. Which is a decision I support for computational reasons. But there are no conclusions that can be drawn from requiring a binary tree before you start and then finding a binary tree after you finish.

    If you are otherwise unclear on tree-building as a match to an unknown data set then you should begin your inquiry with the difference between Shannon-Fano and Huffman coding. Or any other related branch of computer science.

    <blockquoteThat’s not just yet another take on history, it is a damaging one, one that fails to cope with the standards of actual historical research.

    There’s historical research and historical narratives. The current output of history departments is claimed, by historians, to be historical narratives. Not dry facts of dates and times but fairy tales.

    If you Believe the historical narrative of Darwinism, or of your preferred philosophical framework for ID, then you are engaged directly in Theology rather than science.

    I would note, however, that “anti-evolution” would be an outrageously bad take on evolution, not one that’s merely bad or wrong.

    Indeed, if you denied sex then you would be anti-ID as well.

  36. 36
    DrREC says:

    Claim: “pretty much every major advance in physics has occurred when physics broke its own previous methodological rules and incorporated more ideas from theology.”

    Query: “Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years, and describe to me how is incorporates an idea from theology, and was demonstrated in a non-methodologically empiricist manner.”

    Blustering non-response: Why? Is this the inquisition and I have to appeal to the magisterium? Why the last 25 years? Are we really that pushed around by intellectual fashion? Am I also wearing white shoes after labor day?

  37. 37
    DrREC says:

    DrREC: “Non-material (supernatural) is not equatable with non-computational.”

    If that isn’t the case, then non-material has no meaning. What other criteria would there be to distinguish the two?

    I can materially synthesize a peptide that a computer cannot compute the fold of de-novo. A quantum mechanical computation is np-hard. I can still solve the structure by NMY.

    Is there some transcendent property, some non-material essence to the peptide because a computer can’t solve it algorithmically as yet?

  38. 38
    DrREC says:

    ““By the way, ants can “solve” the traveling salesman problem by shooting smelly substances out of their butts.”

    The question is, can they do it in a way which surpasses computational possibilities (i.e. a linear increase in time for each added point). If so, then why is it hard to imagine that other parts of life include the immaterial?

    So a physical (material) solution to a problem is immaterial because it isn’t algorithmically computational at present?

    Odd definitions…..

  39. 39
    Maus says:

    DrREC:

    Same for methodological naturalism.

    Euclid’s elements was methodological naturalism. “Cogito ergo sum” — I think therefore I am — was not. Neither is “Cogitor ergo X-men” — I think therefore I’m a mutant.

    If your cause/effect relationship cannot be demonstrated on a lab-table or makes suprefluous appeals to things not necessary for the demonstration then it is not Methodlogical Natrualism.

    Darwinim postulates a Creation Myth without the present of time machines. Do I need to beat you about the head and shoulders with the notion any more than that?

  40. 40
    Maus says:

    johnnyb:

    Philosophical materialism grasps at all three. There are many who *claim* *methodological* materialism, but then grasp at all three segments, thereby proving that they are in fact philosophical materialists, but don’t want to admit it.

    In fairness there are two camps here. There are the Atheists, as a religion, and there are the philosophers. The philosophers believing that words construct truth by virtue of being uttered. And between the two the religious stripe is far more grounded in sanity.

  41. 41
    tjguy says:

    “But that’s just the issue. This is agreed to by all sides. There is no one on the face of the earth who disagrees with this concept. If this is the definition of evolution, then there is no such thing as an anti-evolution group.”

    Exactly! So often evolutionists use equivocation to make creationists look stupid. They say that we all see proof of evolution happening all the time – like the changing beak lengths of Darwin’s finches. This is a clear example of evolution so anyone who does not believe in evolution is just plain old stupid. But the example of “evolution” given has little to nothing to do with molecules to man evolution.

    Small changes within species or even the development of new finch species is not an issue for most creationists. We do not deny such change can occur. We just do not believe that those small changes can create new genetic information that code for new organs, abilities, etc.

    It’s the micro vs macro thing. Creationists just don’t believe that micro evolution is proof for macro evolution.

  42. 42
    tjguy says:

    “Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years, and describe to me how is incorporates an idea from theology, and was demonstrated in a non-methodologically empiricist manner.”

    Dr. Rec,

    No one argues that using an empirical approach to operational science, – you know, the kind that you can do over and over again, observe what happens with your own eyes, and verify by using the scientific method. Creationists and evolutionists can do this type of science equally well. There is no need to bring evolution into the picture to do rocket science that sends men to the moon.

    Much of physics is this type of science. However, when it comes to trying to figure out what happened in the past, then theory/worldview comes into play big time. Interpretations are made based on worldview. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be observed. We look at the effects and clues left behind in the rocks, etc and then try and figure out the cause, etc. It is this type of science, historical science, that is the problem. Creationists cannot do this type of science in the same way that evolutionists do because they interpret the observations and clues through a different worldview. ID tries to stay in the middle of these two groups claiming they have no bias when it comes to making these interpretations, but nevertheless, they too must make assumptions and educated guesses about the past. This type of science is not nearly as dependable or accurate as operational science.

  43. 43
    tjguy says:

    Johnnyb,

    Can you explain what you mean by this a little more? I’m not sure what you mean by it or why you think this. Thanks.

    “I’ve been working to interest the creation community in the work done in ID precisely because I feel that creationism (both OEC and YEC) is overly-committed to Darwinism at the evolutionary mechanism.”

  44. 44

    Well, that’s helpful that you have defined your use of the term. That’s how I use it too – to denote the principle that heritable variance in reproductive success results in the adaptation of a population to its environment.

    Except that I avoid the word “random” which seems to cause nothing but trouble.

    However, here at UD, the word Darwinism is often implied to mean atheism, or “evolutionary materialism” or as a pejorativec description of someone else’s world view.

    I wish everyone would do as you do and say specifically what they mean by the word.

    Thanks 🙂

  45. 45

    I don’t think they deliberately equivocate. Usually they make clear what usage they mean.

    What I do find, though, is equivocation over the word “Darwinism” by IDists. I don’t know whether it’s deliberate, or just muddle.

    But certainly clouds the issues.

  46. 46
    Joe says:

    1- EVOLUTIONISTS say evolutionism = atheism

    2- EVOLUTIONISTS use equivocation pertaining to evolution as they will use evidence for anti-biotic resistance as evidence for universal common descent via stochastic processes

    2- Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution

  47. 47
    johnnyb says:

    tjguy

    I apologize – it is kind of an esoteric statement. Let me spell it out a little further. If you ask a creationist how organisms change, they will likely say, “random mutation and natural selection”. If you ask a creationist how much organisms change, they are likely to say, “not much”. If you ask them why organisms don’t change much, they are likely to say, “because random mutations can’t accomplish creative work”. Now, this is a perfectly valid logic as far as it goes. However, the problem is that it presumes that, whenever change occurs, it happens just like the Darwinists say – that accidents are driving any changes that happen to occur.

    ID, since most ID’ers focus on information and information theory, have generally agreed that the amount of change is not a technical problem for mutation theory, provided that the original organism has sufficient information. Likewise, many experiments are coming out in experimental biology which indicate that, contra Darwinism, random mutation is not the operating paradigm of adaptive change.

    Therefore, I have been trying to communicate this with creationists (with some success). Basically, I have been pointing out that their biology is a limit to them because it concedes too much territory to Darwin. It is essentially a reactive stance to Darwinism.

    It is an understandable error – Christians like to extend charity as far as it can go. Therefore, we have assumed that we were being told the truth when textbooks said that we know that mutations happen accidentally, and the good ones are selected for. We assumed that was true, and went on to criticize the philosophy. I am trying to point out that it is back at the level of the cause of mutations, not just the philosophy, which is unsubstantiated. However, so much of the arguments of creationists is built around the assumed truth of Darwinism as the actual mechanism of change, that it is hard to convince people to let go of it!

    Anyway, I also discuss this here

    And here is a video I made on the subject of the new view of mutations.

  48. 48
    johnnyb says:

    You are confusing two different ideas.

    (1) is the question of whether X can be computed at the moment
    (2) is the question of whether X can be computed even in theory by a physical computer

    The question about protein folds concerns (1). The question about NP-hard problems concerns (2). I am only talking about 2.

    Now, as yet, quantum computation can only add a quadratic speedup, so it technically cannot solve NP-hard problems. However, I wouldn’t be overly surprised if someone found a way to do it. As physicist Richard Conn Henry said (in the journal Nature no less), “The Universe is immaterial – mental and spiritual”

  49. 49
    johnnyb says:

    The problem of the traveling salesman problem is not that we don’t know how to do it or what it’s computational complexity is. The problem is that we do know what it’s computational complexity is. There simply isn’t any dispute about it. No one thinks they will come up with a general algorithm to solve it any more than anyone in physics thinks they will come up with a perpetual motion machine. The computational complexity is known and well-demonstrated on theoretical grounds. If someone finds a perpetual-motion machine, we can assume that it violates known physics. If someone finds a solution to the traveling salesman problem, we can assume that it is non-computational.

  50. 50
    johnnyb says:

    By the way, DrRec, if you want to converse more on this subject, you should come to the Engineering and Metaphysics conference (eandm20120.com). I’ll be there presenting on this very subject, as well as deriving a new measurement of software complexity based on Intelligent Design.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    johnnyb, you are most likely already aware of this, but if not, I would like to point this out:

    Proteins have now been shown to have a ‘Cruise Control’ mechanism, which works to ‘self-correct’ the integrity of the protein structure from any random mutations imposed on them.

    Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
    “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
    http://www.princeton.edu/main/...../60/95O56/

    Cruise Control permeating the whole of a protein structure??? This is an absolutely fascinating discovery. The equations of calculus involved in achieving even a simple process control loop, such as a dynamic cruise control loop, are very complex. In fact it seems readily apparent to me that highly advanced mathematical information must reside ‘transcendentally’ along the entirety of the protein structure, in order to achieve such control of the overall protein structure. This fact gives us clear evidence that there is far more functional information residing in proteins than meets the eye. Moreover this ‘oneness’ of cruise control, within the protein structure, can only be achieved through quantum computation/entanglement principles, and is inexplicable to the reductive materialistic approach of neo-Darwinism! For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site:

    PID controller
    A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

    It is in realizing the staggering level of engineering that must be dealt with to achieve ‘cruise control’ for each individual protein, along the entirety of the protein structure, that it becomes apparent even Axe’s 1 in 10^77 estimate for rarity of finding specific functional proteins within sequence space is far, far too generous. In fact probabilities over various ‘specific’ configurations of material particles simply do not even apply, at all, since the ’cause’ of the ‘non-local’ quantum information does not reside within the material particles in the first place (i.e. falsification of local realism; Alain Aspect). Here is corroborating evidence that ‘protein specific’ quantum information/entanglement resides in along the entirety of functional proteins structures:

    Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies:
    The essence of life? – STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI
    Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign.
    http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf

    also of ID implication is this finding of information transfer/communication that is just ‘one small step down’ from the top level of ‘instantaneous’ information transfer achieved by ‘quantum entanglement’ in proteins and DNA:

    Cellular Communication through Light
    Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0005086

    Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005
    Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.
    http://www.international-light.....hotons.pdf

    The Real Bioinformatics Revolution – Proteins and Nucleic Acids ‘Singing’ to One Another?
    Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRea.....lution.php

    further trivia that may interest you from a engineering standpoint:

    Protein Folding: One Picture Per Millisecond Illuminates The Process – 2008
    Excerpt: The RUB-chemists initiated the folding process and then monitored the course of events. It turned out that within less than ten milliseconds, the motions of the water network were altered as well as the protein itself being restructured. “These two processes practically take place simultaneously“, Prof. Havenith-Newen states, “they are strongly correlated.“ These observations support the yet controversial suggestion that water plays a fundamental role in protein folding, and thus in protein function, and does not stay passive.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....075610.htm

    Water Is ‘Designer Fluid’ That Helps Proteins Change Shape – 2008
    Excerpt: “When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....113314.htm

  52. 52

    EVOLUTIONISTS say evolutionism = atheism

    [citation needed]

  53. 53
    Joe says:

    Dawkins, Provine, Dennett-

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    click here for a hint:

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

  54. 54

    So William Provine thinks that atheism, or possibly deism, is a reasoned conclusion from “evolutionism”.

    A rather more limited claim than your original one:

    “EVOLUTIONISTS say evolutionism = atheism”

    wouldn’t you say?

  55. 55
    Joe says:

    Provine, Dawkins, Dennett, et al.

    IOW evolutionists do say evolutionism = atheism. That is where we get it from- meaning we did not make it up out of thin air. Our source is the evos themselves.

    Do other evos deny what those evos say? Of course but what else should we expect given the fact that their “theory” would be booted out of school if it were widely known and publically trumpted.

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    But is the foundation of reality really materialistic as the neo-Darwinian atheists must presuppose to coherently maintain his atheism, even in a evolutionary framework, or is the foundation of reality really Theistic, which would undercut the neo-Darwinian’s unwarranted presupposition about the true nature of of the foundation of reality? i.e. Does Elizabeth, and other neo-Darwinists, even have a coherent view of reality within science to maintain their dogmatic atheism? I maintain that the answer is a resounding NO!

    a few notes to that effect:

    From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!! Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the ‘information theoretic’ origin, and sustaining of this universe,;

    The following experiments establish quantum information’s dominion over energy and mass;

    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

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    ,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to ‘instantaneous’ teleportation:,,,

    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.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    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

    ,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed ‘instantaneous’, thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

    Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/

    Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves – April 2011
    Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....-computing

    Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information’s dominion over space and time (specifically time);

    Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement – January 2011
    Excerpt: In “ordinary” quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it’s possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call “teleportation in time.” “To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology,” Olson told PhysOrg.com.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....ement.html

    ,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is ‘conserved’,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    But is the foundation of reality really materialistic as the neo-Darwinian atheists must presuppose to coherently maintain his atheism, even in a evolutionary framework, or is the foundation of reality really Theistic, which would undercut the neo-Darwinian’s unwarranted presupposition about the true nature of of the foundation of reality? i.e. Does Elizabeth, and other neo-Darwinists, even have a coherent view of reality within science to maintain their dogmatic atheism? I maintain that the answer is a resounding NO!

    a few notes to that effect:

    From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!! Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the ‘information theoretic’ origin, and sustaining of this universe,;

    The following experiments establish quantum information’s dominion over energy and mass;

    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

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    ,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to ‘instantaneous’ teleportation:,,,

    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.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    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

    ,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed ‘instantaneous’, thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

    Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/

    Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves – April 2011
    Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....-computing

    Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information’s dominion over space and time (specifically time);

    Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement – January 2011
    Excerpt: In “ordinary” quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it’s possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call “teleportation in time.” “To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology,” Olson told PhysOrg.com.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....ement.html

    ,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is ‘conserved’,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    ,,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state (superposition), which is defined as infinite information, collapses to its particle state, it yields only a single bit of information:,,,

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Zeilinger’s principle
    The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics.
    http://science.jrank.org/pages.....z17a7f88PM

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

    ,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘conserved’ quantum information:,,,

    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

    ,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the ‘infinite information’ of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the ‘uncertain’ particle state,,,

    The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
    Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

    ,,,Wigner stated this in regards to his Nobel Prize winning work on Quantum Symmetries,,,

    Eugene Wigner
    Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
    http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_.....io/wb1.htm

    ,,,i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”,,,

    ,,,It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?,,,

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

    ,,,The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,

    Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
    Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
    http://www.scientificamerican......vefunction

    The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,

    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.

    The Word Is Alive – Casting Crowns – music video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/

    Further notes:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

  60. 60
    Geoxus says:

    By “Darwinism” I mean exactly what the evolutionary biology literature means by it

    “Darwinism” has had many different meanings on the scientific literature as well, which is why I prefer to avoid the term entirely.

    that the primary force of evolution is happenstance changes which are promoted in the population through natural selection

    Then I’m not a Darwinist. I think genetic drift is the main “force” in evolution. I agree that that Darwinism is wrong.

  61. 61
    Geoxus says:

    Two reason:

    1. By doing so, it can mislead into thinking other people than yourself are discussing your views, making it look like your ideas had more impact than they really do.

    2. You don’t disclose authorship just to take pride from your work, but also to assume responsibility for its contents.

  62. 62
    Geoxus says:

    Anyway, I think you’re… I guess it’s equivocating all of ‘Evolution’ with ‘Darwinian Evolution’. And I don’t know why. Football is not all of Sports, but in America it’s the biggest.

    And “America” is a continent, not just the United States of America.

    Likewise, Darwins theory isn’t all of evolutionary theory, though it certainly is the most popular.

    Perhaps among lay people, but among professional evolutionary biologists, Darwinism as defined by johnnyb is not so very popular.

  63. 63
    johnnyb says:

    BA77 –

    No, I was unaware of most of these. Very interesting stuff! I am especially interested in the first one.

  64. 64
  65. 65
    Sonfaro says:

    Hi Geoxus

    Sorry I missed your post dude.

    On America: You’re right, sorry. To clarify, the USA

    On Darwinism/Evolution: As a layperson, I don’t know the innerworkings of pro evolutionary biologists, so you may be right for them. Guys like Dawkins sure make it sound like Darwins theory is the only one worth listening to though.

    Maybe JohnnyB’s definition is too limiting? Or is it too broad?

  66. 66
    Geoxus says:

    On America: You’re right, sorry. To clarify, the USA

    Besides pedantry, I was trying to be meta. Using the part for the whole and the whole for the part can be simply a “short hand” figure of speech, not necessarily an equivocation (although in the context of the post it clearly should be avoided!).

    Guys like Dawkins sure make it sound like Darwins theory is the only one worth listening to though.

    Dawkins badly downplays non-selectionist causes. He portrays what Gould called the “hardened” version of the modern synthesis. I can’t blame him for defending his opinions, but I think he should address the diversity of evolutionary thought more often in his pop sci work.

    Maybe JohnnyB’s definition is too limiting? Or is it too broad?

    It is one of the many conceptions of “Darwinism”. I’d prefer to avoid such ambiguous terms entirely and just explain what I’m talking about.

  67. 67
    Sonfaro says:

    Geoxus,

    Gotcha and Gotcha, thanks for being cool.

    😉

  68. 68
    Axel says:

    When it’s not backed up by empirical science, defining Evolution is a bit like that childrens’ game of trying to pin the tail on the donkey, when they are blind-folded, isn’t it? Great fun, but no more so than musical chairs.

  69. 69
    Axel says:

    bornagain77, you can lead a horse to water…. Seems like you’re water-boarding them, rather than ‘holding their feet to the fire’.

    And what do you get for your pains? Dismissive snorts of “Spam!” I wonder at your patience. That’s what I would call, ‘heroic sanctity’, and were it in power, I would put forward your name for canonisation. Once you’ve ponked it, of course. But I’ll surely predecease you, anyway. At least, I would hope so, as you appear to be a relative stripling!

  70. 70
    champignon says:

    And you can grease an Axel, but that doesn’t always stop it from squeaking.

Leave a Reply