Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Experience, Rational Debate & Science Depend On The Supernatural

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m going to lay out three basic arguments for belief in the supernatural. First, science itself would not be possible were it not for the effects of unseen, higher-order supernatural causes. Second, science and rational debate would not be possible unless we all have faith in the supernatural – unseen spirits not bound to material causes. Third, each of us has direct personal experience of the supernatural every waking second of every day.

Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

1: Science depends on measuring supernatural effects

We call these observable, reliable and measurable effects physical laws, forces and universal constants, but those terms are misleading, much like referring to “chance” as a causal agency. Those terms do not represent causal objects or energies we can point at, but are rather descriptions (or models) of observed patterns of behavior of matter and energy for which there is no known or observable cause. The names of these patterns and models are used as if they apply to causal things, but this is a conceptual error. When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event. Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.

What is the “natural world”?

The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants. However, those laws and constants do not describe where or how such laws and constants exist in the first place, or what they are, or even how they are affecting physical phenomena. These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and  (3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology –  forces, constants and laws).

The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies causing the predictable, reliable, rationally understandable patterns of behavior we observe and describe as the set of natural-occurring phenomena.

2: Science & rational debate depend upon faith in the supernatural

Conducting science requires one to accept that humans have a free will capacity to identify objective facts about the universe and integrate them into theoretical systems that can be properly verified or disproved via true/false statements about experimental outcomes according to abstract principles assumed to be universally valid.  Logically, this means humans must have a capacity that transcends thought as the mere product of happenstance chemical interactions.  IOW, scientists must have faith that humans have the capacity to override whatever thoughts interacting chemicals happen to produce and instead force them down correct, truthful paths from an assumed objective viewpoint. Such a transcendent observational and willful capacity is necessarily supernatural, as the natural is only capable of producing whatever happenstance thoughts and “wilfulness” interacting chemicals happen to produce.

Rational debate depends upon the same assumption; that humans have some kind of non-physical agency which can supervise and override physical thought processes down paths which are correct according to abstract principles which are considered objectively binding. Such an agency is unseen and would necessarily have the power to intervene in the natural patterns producing thoughts and generating conclusions.

It is only by faith in such a supernatural agency and in the supernatural authority of abstract principles accepted as objectively valid that we can expect to be able to overcome the happenstance course of physical cause and effect in the course of our rational and scientific endeavors.

3: Everyone directly experiences the supernatural daily

Each of us experience ourselves as a seat of consciousness with direct, top-down, intentional, prescriptive control (to varying degrees) over the behaviors of many elements of our bodies and thinking processes.  We don’t know how to make various cellular or chemical reactions occur that are necessary for motion and thought. Somehow, without any technical or mechanical knowledge at all, with no understanding of how to initiate or control any of the various chemical and mechanical resources, simple intention can operate what is probably the most highly advanced and complex piece of equipment in the universe with amazing precision. Like a ghost inhabiting a doll out of a movie, our will alone can set physical forces in motion, control them, and stop them on command – no physics, chemistry or mechanical knowledge required whatsoever.  It is precisely like magic.

Furthermore, our will can instantly access any of virtually countless memories without any understanding whatsoever of how the memory process works or how the data retrieval process works.  We can simply intend to write or say something on a subject and gain immediate access to a seemingly never-ending stream of information corresponding to our intent. We can imagine things that do not even exist in the real world, our minds effortlessly rendering a massive virtual reality for us to experience as we daydream or sleep-dream. We cannot see this agency; we cannot explain how it can immediately differentiate from innumerable, variant intents to magically set billions of cellular processes and chemical interactions on a precise course to find memories, find or generate thoughtful, relevant information, or direct our body to precisely achieve a limitless variance of actions.

We experience this self-will as transcending mere physical causation from a higher order of existence, being able to direct the matter and energy of our bodies at will.  We have power over our physical and mental nature exactly like a supernatural ghost in a machine, capable of the most wondrous and amazing feats of physical complexity, creativity and computation without any understanding of how any of it is physically initiated, maintained or controlled.

——————————

That all of these things are considered “mundane” hides their astounding, miraculous, supernatural nature.

Comments
Origines@ 100,
You are conflating ID with theism. Indeed theism cannot be falsified.
I was just following BA77's lead here.
However ID has committed itself to the design inference and therefor can be falsified.
No it can't. Name one thing that an unspecified "intelligence" is incapable of doing. (you can't)Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
BA @101,
To repeat for the umpteenth time, ID has a rigid falsification criteria whereas Darwinian evolution does not.
Repeating something stupid does not make it smart. I have told you why this "falsification criteria" is ludicrous, but you are unable to respond, so you just keep saying the same thing. I have explained this over and over again. You cannot say one theory is falsifiable but not false, simply by saying one could prove some other false theory true. It doesn't work that way. If it did, you could say any theory is falsifiable and not false, just as the example I provided. (edit - Multiverse theory is falsifiable but not false; simply show how life arose in a single universe in order to falsify it!) Proving evolutionary theory false, or showing that no other theory accounts for living things, does not tell us what does account for them. Proving evolutionary theory true does not falsify ID, because there is nothing that could be inconsistent with ID. This is because everything without exception can be attributed to an unspecified "intelligence".
The main point is that no matter what evidence is presented against Darwinian evolution, no matter how crushing, evolutionists deny that the evidence has falsified the theory.
We all know that evolutionary biologists do not think evolutionary theory has been falsified. If you agree with them, fine. The rest of us know full well that evolutionary is falsifiable, and that it has indeed been falsified (as you yourself previously admitted). Even if one doesn't accept the work so far that has shown evolutionary theory to be unable to account for living systems, the examples magna gave certainly would falsify the theory for everyone - even the most steadfast Darwinists. Evolutionary theory is scientific, falsifiable, and false. ID is unscientific, and unfalsifiable.Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Artie and Magna Charta are both wrong. To repeat for the umpteenth time, ID has a rigid falsification criteria whereas Darwinian evolution does not. In fact there is up to a 3 million dollar prize awaiting the first person to give an JUST ONE example of information that does not come from a mind
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
Your fame and fortune awaits! Something tells me that Three million dollars is safe and secure! Now, on to the un-falsifiable nature of Darwinism The main point is that no matter what evidence is presented against Darwinian evolution, no matter how crushing, evolutionists deny that the evidence has falsified the theory. Most of the time Darwinists construct elaborate 'epicycle' theories that are added on to the core framework of Darwinism so as to prevent falsification. NEVER, in the minds of Darwinists, are the falsifying evidences allowed to question the core of the Theory. And while I agree with them that the empirical evidence falsifies Darwinism, and also hold that the 'epicycle' theories that Darwinists add on to prevent falsification are a joke, once again, the primary problem is not that the empirical evidence disagrees with Darwinian evolution, it certainly does, the primary problem is that Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis to test against, as other theories of science, including Intelligent Design, have. Without such a rigid mathematical basis to test against, Darwinian evolution is forever plastic in the minds of Darwinists, able to morph itself into whatever shape it needs to in order to prevent falsification. If you doubt what I'm saying, here is a challenge for you. Go over to Larry Moran's or P.Z. Myer's blog and present the best falsifying evidence you can think of against evolution. How much money do you want to bet that all the falsifying evidence you present against evolution will count for naught? And Moran knows the mathematics of population genetics like the back of his hand and yet he will still spit out neutral theory so quick, just so as to prevent falsification of evolution, that it will make your heads spin. Your preaching to the choir if you are trying to convince me Darwinism is false. I know it is. Go convince him and Myer (and the litany of other Darwinists and Theistic evolutionists teaching in colleges and universities).bornagain77
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Artie: ID cannot be falsified at all. Even if we had the step-by-step explanation that magna alludes to, theists would still claim that God is the one who “commands all the particles to follow all the laws” or some such thing ...
You are conflating ID with theism. Indeed theism cannot be falsified. However ID has committed itself to the design inference and therefor can be falsified.
Dembski: “Whenever explaining an event, we must choose from three competing modes of explanation. These are regularity [i.e., natural law], chance, and design.” When attempting to explain something, “regularities are always the first line of defense. If we can explain by means of a regularity, chance and design are automatically precluded. Similarly, chance is always the second line of defense. If we can’t explain by means of a regularity, but we can explain by means of chance, then design is automatically precluded. There is thus an order of priority to explanation. Within this order regularity has top priority, chance second, and design last”
Origenes
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Evolutionary theory can be falsified in lots of ways, just as magna charta's examples show. And of course people like Dembski have falsified it in terms of probability analyses - something evolutionary theorists were incredibly remiss to not have done in first place. ID cannot be falsified at all. Even if we had the step-by-step explanation that magna alludes to, theists would still claim that God is the one who "commands all the particles to follow all the laws" or some such thing - just as WJM's silly opening post does. There is nothing that can't be attributed to an unspecified (or omnipotent) intelligence, which means unspecified intelligence can't explain anything. [Inflammatory personal material removed]-WJM] Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, and ID is not.Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
BA77:
You keep saying this as if you have a clue what you are talking about.
Actually it is. Or, at least, each one of its components is. If it can be shown that variation cannot increase in a reproductively isolated population, it would be falsified. If mutations cannot be passed on and proliferate in a population, it would be falsified. If new functions could not be shown to arise in a population, it would be falsified. If mutations never were beneficial, under the current or future environment, it would be falsified. If there was no means of inheritance, it would be falsified. But, as Artie said, I can't think of anything that could falsify ID. But, maybe I am missing something that is obvious to you. Can you think of anything that could falsify ID other that a step-by-step explanation, with physical evidence, of every change made in every lineage, regardless of how small, including the formation of the universe we live in, with an explanation with evidence of every atomic reaction?magna charta
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
"While evolutionary theory is scientific and falsifiable," You keep saying this as if you have a clue what you are talking about. Perhaps you would care to lay out the exact demarcation criteria that delineates Darwinian evolution as a testable, falsifiable, scientific theory instead of the pseudo-science that it is that invokes 'epicycles' at the turn of a hat?
A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the disruptive effects that its application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and 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.” 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 his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he (Lakatos) also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
bornagain77
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Rhampton7, As far as I can see correlation has been established between mouse brain cells and 'mouse memories' — whatever that may be.
What is an engram? SHEENA JOSSELYN: It’s the physical manifestation of a memory in the brain, a collection of cells that, if we activate them, express a memory. It changes when we learn something and fires again when we recall something. How does the brain create an engram? We believe that the synaptic connections between neurons chosen to be part of an engram get stronger, thereby creating a mini-network.
A mouse memory is a mini-network of a collection of neurons? What creates an engram? The synaptic connections between neurons "get stronger". What is doing that? And how? How does such a process store information of the memory event? Which neurons? The "neurons chosen to be part of the engram". What is doing the choosing here? Many questions left unanswered.
rhampton7: In regards to this portion of consciousness, we can say it [memory] is a material phenomena.
All we can say that in mice there is a correlation. Maybe a mouse memory is not comparable to a human memory. Moreover correlation is compatible with dualism.
Craig: A dualist-interactionist does not take the soul to operate independently of the brain like a ghost in a machine. Rather, as the Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles emphasizes, the soul uses the brain as an instrument to think, just as a musician uses a piano as an instrument to make music. If his piano is out of tune or damaged, then the pianist’s ability to produce music will be impaired or even nullified. In the same way, says Eccles, if the soul’s instrument of thought, the brain, is damaged or adversely affected, then the soul’s ability to think will be impaired or nullified.
Similarly, if the neuronal network is removed or altered the (mouse) soul's ability to remember will be impaired or nullified.Origenes
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
WJM @92, magna charta is right (and so am I): While evolutionary theory is scientific and falsifiable, it is not possible to falsify ID, because there is nothing that an unspecified, undefined "intelligence" cannot do. But it is much worse than that, I'm afraid. Notwithstanding the religious/anthropomorphic intuitions that lie behind ID, there is actually no similarity between human mentality and what ID actually warrants. Just as Hume argued, there is an analogy between human minds and the cause of living things, but the analogy is abstract and tells us nothing at all of the nature of this cause. William Dembski fully understands this, and to the consternation of the rest of the ID community, admits that ID cannot support an inference to the characteristics that ID proponents want so much to claim scientific support for. For example, Dembski makes it quite clear that even an inference to a conscious mind cannot be supported by the scientific evidence: He has repeatedly explained that "whether, for instance, the designer is a conscious personal agent or an impersonal telic process lie outside the scope of intelligent design". [Inflammatory personal material removed]-WJM] ID provides no scientific support for the notion of a god with a general intellect, beliefs and desires, free will, or any other human characteristic that people normally and informally associate with the term "intelligence". And yet William Dembski - a devoted theist - does in fact readily admit that this is the case. The failure of science to come up with an explanation of how complex biological mechanisms - and life itself - does nothing whatsoever to support ID. As so many people have explained to the deaf ears of IDers, it is a false dichotomy. There is no abductive competition between "natural processes" and "conscious mind", so it is impossible to claim that by amassing evidence against the former we build support for the latter.Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
FYI About memories being part of a supernatural system, there is now a demonstrable method identify individual memories and remove them as well as inject false memories (in mice). The Maestro of Memory Manipulation In regards to this portion of consciousness, we can say it is a material phenomena. In any event, even if consciousness was 100% proven to be material it would not change the ID theory in the least, since it is only concerned with detection of intelligence, and not the differentiation of the natural/supernatural.rhampton7
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
William:
It would falsify ID as the best explanation (which is the actual claim of ID) for certain phenomena because if unintelligent causes can be demonstrated sufficient, that would by default be the better explanation.
This may be true, but it still would not falsify ID. for example, if it were shown that the flagellum arose by all natural processes, this would only falsify ID as its direct cause. But it would still be on the table for all other complex biological structures. And even if it were falsified as the cause of all complex biological structures, it would still be on the table for the cause of the conditions that allowed for biological evolution. I think that is what Archie is getting at with saying that ID is not falsifiable.magna charta
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Magna Charta said:
Even if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information, this does not falsify ID because this wouldn’t preclude ID from also producing complexity and information.
It would falsify ID as the best explanation (which is the actual claim of ID) for certain phenomena because if unintelligent causes can be demonstrated sufficient, that would by default be the better explanation.
In some respects, ID has already been proven as fact. Humans can genetically modify organisms to produce new functions. The big question is whether or not it can be demonstrated to occur by non-humAn or non physical means.
No, the big question is that since we have already demonstrated ID methodologies up to the task in principle, can naturalist demonstrate non-ID methodologies up to the task in principle? If not, ID is the better explanatory system.William J Murray
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
On the other hand, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassment of having no rigid mathematical basis to test against and of having no known law in the universe to appeal to. The math of Intelligent Design is based on the 'law of conservation of information' which finds its mathematical roots in Godel's incompleteness theorem:
Conservation of information, evolution, etc - Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: "The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation]." Gödel - As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html What Does "Life's Conservation Law" Actually Say? - Winston Ewert - December 3, 2015 Excerpt: All information must eventually derive from a source external to the universe, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/what_does_lifes101331.html
bornagain77
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
magna charta, and I also noted that ID has not had to amend its falsification criteria by the addition of epicycles, (i.e. if-then ID explains x), since no one has ever witnessed chance and necessity producing non-trivial functional information and/or complexity. In fact that was the exact point I made in post 71 directly below the comment you cited.
"ID does not have to amend its falsification criteria and say ‘well God may have done it such and such a way to make the design look random’ because no one has ever shown random processes to be capable of the claims made for them. Namely creating the functional information in life." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experience-rational-debate-science-depend-on-the-supernatural/#comment-611275
A few notes on falsification: The primary reason that Darwinism is not falsifiable and that it is able to get away with all the additional 'epicycles' that it does is because Darwinian evolution does not really have a rigidly defined mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories of science have:
“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 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting - 02/08/2016 Suzan Mazur: Peter Saunders in his interview comments to me said that neo-Darwinism is not a theory, it's a paradigm and the reason it's not a theory is that it's not falsifiable. - huffington post Peter Saunders Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London. Peter Saunders has been applying mathematics in biology for over 40 years, in microbiology and physiology as well as in development and evolution. He has been a critic of neo-Darwinism for almost as long. http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/peter-saunders "For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works." Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods. On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600 Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php
The reason mathematicians are unable to develop a rigid mathematical basis for Darwinian evolution that we are able to test against is because there are no known laws in the physical universe for them to base their math upon:
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr - 2004 Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-ernst-in/
In other words, there is no known 'law of evolution' in the known physical universe. In fact, besides there being no known 'law of evolution' for Darwinists to build there math upon in order to make their theory truly scientific, the second law of thermodynamics, which is one of the most rigorously established laws in all of physics, almost directly contradicts the claims of Darwinian evolution (Granville Sewell).bornagain77
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
BA77:
Artie, if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information ID, as it is properly understood, would be falsified. Period.
I am afraid that Artie is correct. Even if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information, this does not falsify ID because this wouldn't preclude ID from also producing complexity and information. In some respects, ID has already been proven as fact. Humans can genetically modify organisms to produce new functions. The big question is whether or not it can be demonstrated to occur by non-humAn or non physical means.magna charta
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
WJM, you may appreciate this debate: The Rowe-Grayling Debate - Michael Egnor - June 23, 2016 Excerpt: Grayling's problem is not merely his frank incompetence in open debate (you can understand his penchant for censorship). Grayling's problem is that atheism is indefensible in open debate. Rabbi Rowe is to be congratulated for his superb defense of the obvious truth of God's existence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/the_rowe-grayli102945.htmlbornagain77
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Artie falsely claimed that the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution is falsifiable as a scientific theory. Was shown, because of the way it is constructed with no testable mathematical basis, Darwinian evolution avoids falsification by the addition of 'epicycle' theories.
Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater “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.” ~ Cornelius Hunter
And while I agree with Artie that none-the-less, Darwinian evolution, in spite of its lack of a rigid and testable mathematical basis, is empirically falsified (Behe 1 in 10^20 Edge of Evolution per malaria, and Quantum Information in DNA)), Artie pretends that I did not make this distinction clear. Moreover, no one but Artie truly believes that Darwinian evolution is properly falsified as a scientific theory. How do you really falsify tea-leaf reading? Artie either has a reading comprehension issue or is playing trollish games. Artie claimed that ID was not falsifiable and has repeatedly been shown that it is falsifiable:
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk
He blatantly refuses to acknowledge his errors and that his logic is completely incoherent. Moreover, Artie (purposely) confuses the unfalsifiable nature of the multiverse with the coherence of Theism
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video: The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
Moreover, if Artie is not an atheist but is instead a Theist, then by his argumentation style alone, he might as well actually be an atheist for all practical purposes. He certainly is no apologist that I would ever look up to! The only point that Artie has made clear is that he is a troll.bornagain77
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Readers: The arguments BA failed to respond to are these: 1) BA said evolutionary theory was not falsifiable, then proceeded to explain how evolutionary theory has been falsified. I pointed out his comical error, but he never admitted it. 2) BA said intelligent design theory was falsifiable. I pointed out that since an unspecified "intelligence" can account for any observation whatsoever, it was not falsifiable (and not a useful theory). BA argued that ID could be falsified by showing evolutionary theory (or some other theory) was true. I pointed out that this was nonsense, and provided a reductio ad absurdum that showed by BA's own reasoning, one could argue that Multiverse theory was falsifiable (which it isn't). I explained that one cannot claim some theory is falsifiable simply because some better idea might come along; rather, there must be tests that can confirm/falsify the theory. BA failed to respond to that as well. Then, he said my errors were blatant (what errors?), that he showed me to be wrong (where?), that my logic was incoherent (where?), and that I am an atheist (wrong!). Would anyone else care to discuss the issues here?Artie
June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
Artie, you are the one wasting our time making incoherent arguments. It is not my fault that you persist in your incoherent logic. You were clearly shown that you were wrong in your arguments and instead of acknowledging your blatant error you just repeated your incoherent logic as if that established it as true. Now THAT is truly bizarre. You are a typical atheistic troll since you refuse to listen to sound reason (as if sound reason itself could even be grounded in an atheistic metaphysic in the first place!).
A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. EULER Excerpt: "The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible." http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/translations/E092trans.pdf
bornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
ba77, you have now failed four times to respond to my arguments. You were wrong about evolutionary theory not being falsifiable, and you were wrong about ID being falsifiable. Rather than debate, you accuse me of being a troll, of being William Shakepeare (I don't even know what you mean by that), and then you start copy/pasting who knows what endlessly into the thread. We'll be ending our discussion now. I hope not everyone here is as bizarre as you are.Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Moreover, Artie is severely confusing the 'explains everything therefore explains nothing' aspect of the multiverse with the explanatory power of God. They are vastly different:
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko
Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
bornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
as to: "those who predicted that science could never in principle explain them without invoking intelligent agency turned out to be wrong" Actually the Christian founders of modern science were right and atheists were wrong If anything, as science has advanced, atheists have had to retreat further and further into 'materialism of the gaps' arguments whilst Theists have had their predictions confirmed
Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism - a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1139512636061668/?type=2&theater 1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after 'theory of everything'
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1113745045305094/?type=2&theater (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1121720701174195/?pnref=story
bornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
as to: "Before field theory, for example, phenomena such as lightning were utterly inexplicable – but those who predicted that science could never in principle explain them without invoking intelligent agency turned out to be wrong." is this We Don't Actually Know What Triggers Lightning Strikes - Aug. 2013 Excerpt: Lightning is a natural electrical discharge—but scientists are still scratching their heads trying to figure out what triggers it. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/08/lightning_strikes_what_causes_lightning_is_a_mystery_could_it_be_cosmic.html Physicist finds mysterious anti-electron clouds inside thunderstorm - May 13, 2015 Excerpt: Says Dwyer, "We really don't understand how lightning gets started very well because we don't understand the electrical environment of thunderstorms. This positron phenomenon could be telling us something new about how thunderstorms charge up and make lightning, but our finding definitely complicates things because it doesn't fit into the picture that was developing." http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicist-mysterious-anti-electron-clouds-thunderstorm.htmlbornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
Artie, you are trolling and wasting our time with your incoherent rubbish. Are you William Speareshake reincarnate?bornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Origenes @77:
All you did was provide some examples of things that current science cannot pin down. Unless you can show that these things can never be understood by science on principle — which you cannot — your point is irrelevant and distracts from the main point WJM is making.
Again, WJM defined "supernatural" as anything that could not be explained by laws and constants. I gave examples of such things which are not typically thought of as "supernatural". There is no way of knowing, of course, whether or not science will ever be able to explain turbulence, nuclear decay events, and these other things in terms of laws and constants, but it can't now, and it's not just a matter of "pinning down" the details of course, these things are deeply mysterious. The history of science is a litany of surprises, where new aspects of nature that nobody had any inkling of provided answers to previously unsolved questions. Before field theory, for example, phenomena such as lightning were utterly inexplicable - but those who predicted that science could never in principle explain them without invoking intelligent agency turned out to be wrong. It is my belief that something radically outside of our experience was involved in the appearance of life, and speciation; perhaps we'll figure it out someday, or perhaps not.
Bornagain: Artie, if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information ID, as it is properly understood, would be falsified. Period. Bornagain is perfectly right here — see the Design Inference.
No, BA is perfectly wrong - see my argument to him and try to respond if you can.
Also WRT the alleged non-falsifiability of ID. You should familiarize yourself with the Design Inference.
You should familiarize yourself with falsifiability.
WRT ‘intelligence explains everything’. Intelligence explains CSI, not the movement of billiard ball B due to its interaction with billiard ball A.
Well, you've managed here to contradict WJM's original post, where he claims that such motions are indeed perpetually caused by intelligent agency!Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
ba77 @ 76:
You think aliens and panspemia are reasonable compared to God?
God? You're talking about a god? Sorry, I was under the impression that this site was for discussing scientific theories and evidence, not religion.
That consciousness preceded and precedes material reality is established by quantum mechanics
Ah, apparently you are a quantum physics expert ...um... aficionado. Anyway, the science of QM doesn't suggest anything like what you say, but of course you can find people who mistake the myriad different philosophical interpretations of QM for the actual physics. Let's simply agree to disagree about this.
I certainly do not agree with you that ID is not falsifiable. ID is very open to falsification.
Well you don't seem to be able to make your case, although I've given you ample opportunity. I believe this is the third time I've explained this, so please read carefully: First: There is nothing that cannot be attributed to an unspecified, “intelligence”, and something that explains everything explains nothing. Therefore your theory, which offers "unspecified 'intelligence'" as the explanation for biological complexity (among other things) is not a useful explanation at all. Then: Disproving one theory does not somehow prove another. By your logic, one could say that the multiverse theory must be correct, because there is no explanation of how functional complexity arises in a single universe. Mulitiverse theory would be falsifiable according to your logic – all one would need to do is to explain how functional complexity arose in a non-multiverse. But of course that is ludicrous – one can’t pretend to have a falsifiable theory simply by saying it can be falsified if someone else comes up with a better idea. There actually must be a way to test and confirm or falsify the theory in question, without reference to other theoriesArtie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Artie,
Artie: I gave examples of phenomena that cannot be so explained, which by WJM’s definition means that they are supernatural. But nobody thinks of turbulence or dark energy as being supernatural (at least nobody that I know). Thus, I’ve shown that WJM’s definitions of “natural” and “supernatural” are confused.
All you did was provide some examples of things that current science cannot pin down. Unless you can show that these things can never be understood by science on principle — which you cannot — your point is irrelevant and distracts from the main point WJM is making.
Bornagain: Artie, if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information ID, as it is properly understood, would be falsified. Period.
Bornagain is perfectly right here — see the Design Inference. Also WRT the alleged non-falsifiability of ID. You should familiarize yourself with the Design Inference. WRT 'intelligence explains everything'. Intelligence explains CSI, not the movement of billiard ball B due to its interaction with billiard ball A.Origenes
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
You think aliens and panspemia are reasonable compared to God? Your trolling now, I call that particular maneuver the Dawkins dodge:
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - aliens seeded life on earth 3:55 minute mark https://youtu.be/GlZtEjtlirc?t=234
That consciousness preceded and precedes material reality is established by quantum mechanics: Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now 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. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
I certainly do not agree with you that ID is not falsifiable. ID is very open to falsification. IMHO, You are being purposely obtuse. I would even say trollish! Are you Speareshake reincarnated?
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.” - Dr Michael Behe
bornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
ba77 @ 70:
That information can be produced by conscious intelligence is a 100% known fact.
Certainly if there was some conscious organism like those we're familiar with that existed somewhere before life on Earth, that might explain how life ended up on Earth (perhaps by panspermia or something similar). So that is a reasonable hypothesis. But nobody knows if there are intelligent beings anywhere else. There has been a concerted effort to find evidence of such beings going on for some time (the project is called SETI). The results, thus far, have been negative. Since nobody has found any evidence of intelligent beings besides the ones here on Earth, your hypothesis is thus far unsupported.
Evolution claims that random processes can produce information.
Randomness is only part of evolutionary theory, not all of it. No matter though, we agree that evolutionary theory cannot currently account for biological complexity. As to my points you've ignored: I take it you now agree with me that evolutionary theory is falsifiable, which accounts for how it has been falsified. I also take it that you now see that ID theory is not falsifiable, because there is nothing that cannot be attributed to an unspecified intelligence, and something that explains everything explains nothing.Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
You are (purposely?) confused. That information can be produced by conscious intelligence is a 100% known fact. Evolution claims that random processes can produce information. That is a claim is with 0 observed instances! Its not rocket science! Multiverse theory is epistemologically self-defeating. Fine Tuning, Multiverse Pink Unicorns, and The Triune God – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1145151962164402/?type=2&theaterbornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply