Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Group selection is NOT the “scientific dust bunny” your prof told you?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Anelosimus spiders/Judy Gallagher

Remember when evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson was insulting pastors by writing them Dear Pastor letters (but he no longer believed in anything they did)?

Later, he started a huge row by turning his back on his big theory, group selection, insisting that Darwin’s natural selection could do it all (selfish gene style?) He had friends, too, once he repented of his sins against absolute Darwinism: “Group selection has become a scientific dust bunny, a hairy blob in which anything having to do with ‘groups’ clings to anything having to do with ‘selection,'” famed Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in a 2012 attack on group selection.”) So that settled it. Darwin’s heirs ruled.

Some now claim to have come up with evidence for group selection:

From ScienceDaily:

Along rivers in Tennessee and Georgia, scientists have been studying brownish-orange spiders, called Anelosimus studiosus, that make cobwebby nests “anywhere from the size of a golf ball to the size of a Volkswagen Beetle,” researcher Jonathan Pruitt says. The individual spiders are only the size of a pencil eraser, but they form organized groups that can catch prey ranging from fruit flies to small vertebrates. “We have found carcasses of rats and birds inside their colonies,” Pruitt says. Unlike most spiders, which are solitary, these social spiders work together in groups.

Now new research shows that they evolve together in groups, too.

Say “group selection” among some groups of evolutionary biologists and you won’t be invited back to the party. But Jonathan Pruitt, at the University of Pittsburgh, and Charles Goodnight, at the University of Vermont, have been studying generations of these Anelosimus spiders — and have gathered the first-ever experimental evidence that group selection can fundamentally shape collective traits in wild populations.

Their results are presented in the Oct. 1 online edition of the journal Nature.

“Biologists have never shown an adaptation in nature which is clearly attributable to group selection,” Goodnight said. “Our paper is that demonstration.”

What? “Say “group selection” among some groups of evolutionary biologists and you won’t be invited back to the party”?

Because those people care only about control, not about facts, as long as the rest of us fund their follies? Say “Darwin” and that figures.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
"Hawkings said God does not exist a few years ago. Science advances and recent knowledge is usually better. So? Simple: you have to distinguish between a researcher producing knowledge through his work and a researcher emiting an opinion." Interesting, Hawking's most famous work, the extension of General Relativity back in the late 60's, early 70's, confirms Theistic premises,,, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. Whereas Hawkings subsequent work, 'Hawking Radiation', has yet to be verified,,, In September 2010, a signal that is closely related to black hole Hawking radiation (see analog gravity) was claimed to have been observed in a laboratory experiment involving optical light pulses. However, the results remain unverified and debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation Moreover, a 'second quantum revolution' is now being ushered in (quantum computation, etc...) by the insights of the man who held consciousness to the 'ultimate universal reality',,, "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/ Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner 'consciousness' quote, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner's insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a 'second' revolution in quantum mechanics,,, Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution - Anton Zeilinger - Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf Thus by your own criteria G, Theism wins again.bornagain77
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
G'moe:
Spiders have some intelligence”. That’s not ID. That’s basic biology.
Except biology cannot explain spiders nor their intelligence.Joe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
“ID has been explained many times- it is basically the detection and study of design in nature” G'moe:
Then it is just anatomy.
Cuz G'moe sez so. As for Hawking- he doesn't have any way to model nor test his claims. That means they are NOT science.Joe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video https://vimeo.com/32148403bornagain77
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
bornagain "Does your list of ‘charlatans’ include Planck, Wigner, and Schrodinger?" No, it includes the guys who misinterpret the works of Planck, Wigner, and Schrodinger. And also those who confound their opinions with real knowledge produced by their work. You quote Planck in 1931. Hawkings said God does not exist a few years ago. Science advances and recent knowledge is usually better. So? Simple: you have to distinguish between a researcher producing knowledge through his work and a researcher emiting an opinion. Also, you should note that researchers in the quantum field always warn that quantum physics do not have a straight forward interpretation. You know what that means. That when they say "consciousness is fundamental" they are not saying what YOU think they are saying. Anyway, you have not still explained any biological feature using ID. Why is it so hard?Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
it is 'just' anatomy or it is 'just' biology are part and parcel to the 'just so' stories Darwinists are infamous for: EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html "Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762sbornagain77
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
"Indeed? Use it to explain any feature of life." You can't explain a single protein or DNA molecule with appealing to 'non-local' quantum entanglement! The rest of your post is also BS,,, good luck with all that!bornagain77
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Joe "ID has been explained many times- it is basically the detection and study of design in nature" Then it is just anatomy.Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
ppolish "Nests are explained by Intelligent Design." And what is that explanation? "Nest are made by spiders"? That's basic biology, not ID. "Spiders have some intelligence". That's not ID. That's basic biology.Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
you state: "chralatans misinterpreting quatum physics" Does your list of 'charlatans' include Planck, Wigner, and Schrodinger? “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - the originator of quantum theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797) "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)bornagain77
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
bornagain: "No, actually it is pure science." Indeed? Use it to explain any feature of life. "First, we know that intelligence can create functional information." We are not talking about any "functional information". We are talking about living organisms. "material processes do not have a causal ‘mechanism’ to create information." Yes, they do. The change in the length of the day is information for many species to know that cold of warm weather is coming. And it is produced by the axial tilt of the Earth and it's rotation. "Moreover, contrary to what you seem to believe, chance and necessity are not ‘mechanisms’ in and of themselves" Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't believe such things. "you, as a atheistic materialist, do not have a ‘mechanism’ to appeal to to explain how the universe originated" I don't. But I recognize it. I am not inventing a "cause" and claiming I have evidence I don't have and can "explain" things when I can't. I've read your chitchat: YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING WITH ID. Can ID really explain anything? Show me an example. All you do is criticizing evolution for saying things it doesn't say, denying things that have been proved true and claiming how adequate the ID explanation is but never stating what is is exactly and how we can really use it TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING, ANYTHING. Choose any biological feature and explain it with ID, please. By the way, quantum physics misinterpretations to explain bullshit are not something I will appreciate.Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Box: "Would you care to comment on my hypothesis for naturalistic Intelligent Design – post #36?" Ok. What evidence do you have to suggest that life on Earth was placed here by scientist from other universe? Possible, it is possible. Plausible? Not, today. "Guillermoe #32: How does that “intelligent purposeful agent” interact with biological matter, exactly? How does he not?" That's not an answer. "How do you drink your coffe?" "How wouldnt I?" See? It's nor an answer. "Quantum physics informs us that consciouness is fundamental to / creates matter. " No, chralatans misinterpreting quatum physics inform as that consciousness is fundamental to create matter. "Guillermoe #32:Can you specify what this agent is like? Not based on ID." Alright!!! First answer from ID: "Life was designed by we don't know what". All you have to do. now, is you don't know how, why, when or where, either. Then, try to explain why ID is really an explanation to anything.Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
By design I mean of the type that requires an intelligent agency, including one that acts stupidly or maliciously.Joe
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
ID has been explained many times- it is basically the detection and study of design in nature.Joe
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Daniel King:
I’m not trying to defend anything.
Understood.
Still waiting…
Keep waiting.Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
DK, don’t think for a moment that I take your questions seriously.
That's a convenient excuse for not being able to answer them.
You’ve never even tried to defend it as having been a reasonable attempt to understand ID.
I'm not trying to defend anything. All along I've been asking you and your fellows to explain it. Still waiting...Daniel King
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
DK, don't think for a moment that I take your questions seriously. Just so we understand each other. Your first question was so far off base as to be simply ludicrous. You've never even tried to defend it as having been a reasonable attempt to understand ID. Your latest round is no different. Try again.Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
DK, the antonym of "Intelligent Design" could be called "Senseless Aimlessness". Can this explain anything? The Communal Spider Nest? Course not. Origin of species? Nope. Darwin himself suggested Creator "Breath".ppolish
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
DK, you narrowed the gap from "ID does not explain anything" to "ID does not explain origin of bio species". C'mon, can you name one example of origin of species that was not intelligently designed? Crickets maybe?ppolish
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
DK, from the fact that you cannot figure out what ID is about or what ID attempts to explain it does not follow that “ID claims to explain the history of life on earth.” In fact, your continued feigned “ignorance” indicates that you’ve known all along that ID does not claim to explain the history of life on earth.
Right. I'm "feigning" ignorance and it's my fault that you can't answer these questions: What is it [ID] a theory about, then? (If it doesn’t claim to explain the history of life on earth.) Does it claim to explain anything? If ID isn't about the ORIGINS OF BIOLOGICAL SPECIES, what is it about?Daniel King
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
DK:
(1) The agent is material. In this case, the agent would interact with matter like all other material agents. However, ID theory doesn’t seem to specify whether the agent is material or immaterial. Strangely, supporters of ID seem to think that this is not an interesting question.
Wrong again. The question is interesting but it has nothing to do with IDJoe
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Spider Nest, Beaver Lodge, Sapien Condo Complex. ID,ID, and ID. Daniel, can you name one thing that is NOT explained by ID? Impossible really.ppolish
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
DK, from the fact that you cannot figure out what ID is about or what ID attempts to explain it does not follow that "ID claims to explain the history of life on earth." In fact, your continued feigned "ignorance" indicates that you've known all along that ID does not claim to explain the history of life on earth.Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Daniel, the Spider Nests built by various groups of spiders exhibit Intelligent design. Nests are explained by Intelligent Design. It's hard to me to find anything that is NOT explained by Intelligent Design.ppolish
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Mung:
Daniel King, Pathetic response, truly pathetic.
Thank you for your usual content-free and insult-laden rebuttal. Now, can you answer my questions: What is it [ID] a theory about, then? (If it doesn't claim to explain the history of life on earth.) Does it claim to explain anything?Daniel King
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
To put it more simply Guillermoe, you, as a atheistic materialist, do not have a 'mechanism' to appeal to to explain how the universe originated, nor do you even have a 'mechanism' to explain why anything continues to exist in the universe, nor do you have a mechanism for explaining how anything, any particle in the universe, moves within the universe. A few notes along that line:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 Aquinas' Third way - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030hvnX5a4 God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjuqBxg_5mA Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
The double slit experiment clearly illustrates that the ancient first mover argument is accurate. In the following video Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:
Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video that meshes perfectly with the ‘first mover argument’::
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." Anton Zeilinger
If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,
Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/
Professor Zeilinger states,,,
"We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between." Anton Zeilinger i.e. "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." - Michael Egnor
Verse and Music:
Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' The Allman Brothers Band - Soulshine - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3BYTS8uxM
bornagain77
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Guillermoe as to,,,
“Guillermoe, actually I provided falsification for the reductive materialistic claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a materialistic basis” I know, but it’s pure nonsense.
No, actually it is pure science. But I can see where a Darwinist would call pure science nonsense since his preferred theory is not even a proper science, with a rigid mathematical basis in the first place, but is actually a pseudo-science, i.e. is pure 'nonsense'! Guillermoe, as to intelligence creating information you ask,,,
HOW DOES IT DO IT?,,,
A few points. First, we know that intelligence can create functional information. You yourself create information every time you write a sentence. Thus, the probability is 100% that intelligence can create information. That point is not even under debate. Moreover, material processes have never been observed to create functional information. That they 'may' possibly create information is the point under debate.
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/
To put it in your terminology, material processes do not have a causal 'mechanism' to create information. Moreover, contrary to what you seem to believe, chance and necessity are not 'mechanisms' in and of themselves. To put it more clearly, chance and necessity have never 'caused' anything to happen in this universe. Which brings us to the second point. Random chance is a 'placeholder for ignorance' as to an actual 'causal mechanism'. Talbott puts it like this,,
Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011 Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness
i.e. “random chance” is the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings. Thus I can just as well ask you what is the 'mechanism' of chance. i.e. How does chance 'cause' anything to happen in the universe? Although the term “chance” can be defined as a mathematical probability, such as the chance involved in flipping a coin, when Darwinists use the term 'random chance', generally it’s substituting for a more precise word such as “cause,”,,, especially when the cause, i.e. 'mechanism', is not known.
“To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.” Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”
Moreover, law or necessity, like 'random chance', also does not have causal adequacy within itself. i.e. Law is not a 'mechanism' that has ever 'caused' anything but is merely a description of a regularity.
“In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event." - C.S. Lewis The Laws of Nature (Have Never ‘Caused’ Anything) by C.S. Lewis – doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk "Joel Primack, a cosmologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, once posed an interesting question to the physicist Neil Turok: “What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws.” Turok was surprised by the question; he recognized its force. Something seems to compel physical objects to obey the laws of nature, and what makes this observation odd is just that neither compulsion nor obedience are physical ideas.,,, Physicists since Einstein have tried to see in the laws of nature a formal structure that would allow them to say to themselves, “Ah, that is why they are true,” and they have failed." Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion pg. 132-133 BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, 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/ Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - John Lennox - 2012 Excerpt: God is not a "God of the gaps", he is God of the whole show.,,, C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/
Thus Guillermoe, contrary to how you imagine reality to be structured, you yourself, in your appeal to chance and necessity as to being causally adequate within themselves, have appealed to vacuous explanations for 'mechanism'. ,,, Your argument against the causal adequacy of intelligence, i.e. against the 'mechanism' of intelligence backfires against itself and reminds of Krauss's argument against God from a few years ago.
Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
bornagain77
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Guillermoe #32: How does that “intelligent purposeful agent” interact with biological matter, exactly?
How does he not? Quantum physics informs us that consciouness is fundamental to / creates matter. Dualism is out.
Guillermoe #32:Can you specify what this agent is like?
Not based on ID. The Designer may even be the result of Darwinian processes that have taken place in a neighboring universe; see post #36.Box
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Guilermoe, Would you care to comment on my hypothesis for naturalistic Intelligent Design - post #36?Box
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
bystander: "Do you really believe that Darwin figured out everything when he had no idea of complexity of cell and hadn’t even fantasied about DNA ?" Of course not. Don't you really know that scienist have kept on researching on evolution and now the thoery of evolution is much more than what Darwin said?Guillermoe
October 3, 2014
October
10
Oct
3
03
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply