Have quantum physics’ problems been disgracefully swept under the carpet?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 19, 2019

Books of interest, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Does anyone remember the microflap a while back when physicist Adam Becker decided to attack Inference Review as an ID-friendly rag over (so it seems) a less-than-flattering review of his book, What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics (Basic Books, 2018)?

Things haven’t fared that much better for Becker at The New Atlantis:

In What Is Real? the physicist and science writer Adam Becker offers a history of what his subtitle calls “the unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics.” Although it is certainly unfinished, it is, as quests go, a few knights short of a Round Table. After the generation of pioneers, foundational work in quantum mechanics became stigmatized as a fringe pursuit, a career killer. So Becker’s well-written book is part science, part sociology (a study of the extrascientific forces that helped solidify the orthodoxy), and part drama (a story of the ideas and often vivid personalities of some dissenters and the shabby treatment they have often received).
The publisher’s blurb breathlessly promises “the untold story of the heretical thinkers who dared to question the nature of our quantum universe” and a “gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.” But What Is Real? doesn’t live down to that lurid black-and-white logline. It does make a heartfelt and persuasive case that serious problems with the foundations of quantum mechanics have been persistently, even disgracefully, swept under the carpet.David Guaspari, “Make Physics Real Again” at The New Atlantis

Or two different carpets at once? Perhaps no one quite knows how to deal with the problems and everyone implicitly agrees not to raise the subject?

He summarizes the state of quantum mechanics as “a wildly successful theory, an embarrassment of interpretations, and a major challenge in moving past our theory to the next one.” The small but vigorous community doing work on foundations is less marginal than it used to be. The book’s final section sketches some of its current research and concludes modestly that the wisest course at present is accepting a pluralism of interpretations, or “at least humility.” “Quantum physics is at least approximately correct…. We just don’t know what that means yet. And it’s the job of physics to find out.” David Guaspari, “Make Physics Real Again” at The New Atlantis

Maybe quantum physics is only “approximately correct” and we can’t get more correct down at that level? If so, then what?

Okay, so Becker’s book didn’t satisfy a lot of people. Now back to Inference Review for a minute. Not everyone hates Inference Review:

As for the dark and powerful forces at Inference, the list of their editors is now public (and quite distinguished). Yes, it seems to be Thiel’s money, but, if it’s paying for good science writing (modulo some early dubious choices), so what? Peter Woit, “On Inference” at Not Even Wrong

But Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, and frequent quote-ee around here tells Peter Woit in the combox that she had a bad experience there:

I was contacted by someone from Inference some years ago. They asked me to write an essay for them and made a pretty good financial offer. I put a lot of effort in this and submitted the piece as requested.
After some while I received a revision from an anonymous editor who had garbled up my argument so badly and misrepresented my opinion so much that I could see no common ground and just refused to agree it be published. Luckily I hadn’t signed the letter of agreement, so I had no trouble pulling out of this. (Otoh, I didn’t get the kill fee either.) I then shortened the piece and published it elsewhere. Sabine Hossenfelder, “comment at February 2, 2019 to On Inference” at Not Even Wrong

That’s too bad. We always try to read what Hossenfelder writes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Inference Review did not set out to make a fool of Adam Becker (Needless effort, say the editors.)

and

The origin of language remains obscure Some thoughts on two items from Inference Review, one co-authored by Noam Chomsky.

Comments

“If people are calling names then that means they don't have a good argument against what we're doing. So I feel that that's actually a statement by them that I must be right." —Attorney Gloria Allred[1] Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. There are many subsets of ad hominem, all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than attacking the claim or attempting to counter arguments. They are a type of fallacy of relevance. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy, as it focuses on the source of the argument, at the expense of focusing on the truth or falsity of the actual argument itself. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which admittedly attacks a person, but does not seek to rebut that person's arguments by doing so — that type of rhetoric is better termed as poisoning the well. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
bornagain77_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Hazel
You called it, Ed.
A trained monkey could have called it. Que ET with a comment about me being stupider than a trained monkey. :)Ed George_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

You called it, Ed.hazel_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Another very important place where ‘platonic perfection’ is now shown to be ‘perfectly reached’ in the universe, (as far as our most precise testing will allow), is for the ‘flatness’ of the universe.
“When a geometry is described by a set of axioms, the notion of a line is usually left undefined (a so-called primitive object).” per wikipedia How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Moreover, this ‘insane coincidence’ of ‘plantonic perfection’ being reached for the axiomatic ‘primitive object’ of the line just so happens to be necessary for us to even be able to practice math and science, (and apply technology in our world), in the first place:
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,, https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html Why We Need Cosmic Inflation By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist | October 22, 2018 Excerpt: As best as we can measure, the geometry of our universe appears to be perfectly, totally, ever-so-boringly flat. On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on. All the rules of Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school apply. But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat. https://www.space.com/42202-why-we-need-cosmic-inflation.html
Simply put, if the universe were not ‘ever-so-boringly’ flat (and if the universal constants were not also ‘ever-so-boringly’ constant), but the universe were instead governed by randomness, as atheists presuppose, or governed by some other of the infinitude of ‘platonic topologies’ that were possible, modern science and technology would have never gotten off the ground here on earth.
Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006 Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”,,, The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,, The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed. http://www.space.com/2613-scientists-question-nature-fundamental-laws.html
Nor, if platonic perfection were not present for the flatness of the universe would we have eventually been able to deduce the ‘platonic perfection’ that is revealed in the ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics that lay behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. More interesting still, these findings of ‘platonic perfection’ for the higher dimensional mathematics that lay behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are VERY friendly to overriding Christian presuppositions of life after death as well as the presupposition of God upholding this universe in its continual existence:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
Of supplemental and final note, Allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
(April 2019) Overturning the Copernican principle (with our most powerful theories in science) Excerpt: Thus in conclusion, the new interactive graph by Dr. Dembski provides a powerful independent line of evidence, along with several other powerful lines of scientific evidence (from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), that overturns the Copernican principle and restores humanity back to centrality in the universe, and even, when putting all those lines of evidence together, brings modern science back, full circle, to Christianity from whence it originated in the first place. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-dembski-and-colleagues-create-an-updated-magnifying-the-universe-tool/#comment-675730
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-22 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
bornagain77_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Hazel asks,
ba, are there any good scientific theories today, based on both your criteria: 1) that they are unlikely to change for the better in the future (how would we know that?), and 2) they are based on rigidly mathematical empirical testing? Give an example, please.
Sure. Science has a history of looking for 'platonic perfection'. and assuming the Mind of God to be behind that ‘platonic perfection’. That is to say, that science has a history of reaching for perfect agreement between the immaterial mathematics that describe a facet of this universe and the experimental results that measure those mathematical predictions.
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” Galileo Galilei “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler
Copernicus, (who was heavily influenced by Platonic thinking), imagined (incorrectly) that the planets move in perfect circles (rather than ellipses). Later, Newton, for allowing God could adjust the orbits of the planets, was chastised by Leibniz, (and Laplace) for having a “very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.”.. i.e. For having a narrow view of the perfection of God.
“Leibniz, in his controversy with Newton on the discovery of infinitesimal calculus, sharply criticized the theory of Divine intervention as a corrective of the disturbances of the solar system. “To suppose anything of the kind”, he said, “is to exhibit very narrow ideas of the wisdom and power of God’.” – Pierre-Simon Laplace https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
It is also important note that 'normally' mathematical concepts do not have a precise instantiation in nature,,
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
And indeed for most of the history of modern science in the Christian west, finding ‘platonic perfection’ for the mathematical descriptions of the universe has been a very elusive goal. This all changed with the discoveries of Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That is to say, as far as experimental testing will allow, there is no discrepancy to be found between what the mathematical descriptions of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics predict and what our most advanced scientific testing of those predictions are able to measure.
“Recent experiments have confirmed, to within one part in one hundred million billion (10^17), that the speed of light does not change when an observer is in motion.” Douglas Ell – “Counting To God” – pg. 41 – 2014 “When this paper was published (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose paper) we could only prove General Relativity’s reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal.” Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics – quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following video debate Hugh Ross vs Lewis Wolpert – Is there evidence for a Cosmic Creator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMrDO0_WvQ Introduction to The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that humanity has ever developed; the brightest jewel in our intellectual crown. Quantum mechanics underlies our understanding of atoms, molecules, solids, and nuclei. It is vital for explaining aspects of stellar evolution, chemical reactions, and the interaction of light with matter. It underlies the operation of lasers, transistors, magnets, and superconductors. I could cite reams of evidence backing up these assertions, but I will content myself by describing a single measurement. One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is 50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers. The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is 50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers. The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand. In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all. http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/StrangeQM/intro.html Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf
As well, quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics, also now joins the list of perfect mathematical descriptions of the universe in which we can find no deviation from what the mathematics predict and what our best experimental testing can discern. In other words, as far as we can tell, 'platonic perfection' is reached for QED:
The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that). http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/ Bohemian Gravity - Rob Sheldon - September 19, 2013 Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg's S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it, "The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.”" What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism--that there do not exist "spooky-action-at-a-distance" forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,, http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/
As Nima Arkani-Hamed, the discoverer of the amplituhedron, stated “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation.",,,
Physicist: It’s Not The Answers We Lack, It’s The Question - February 24, 2019 Excerpt: “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?” Nima Arkani-Hamed https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-its-not-the-answers-we-lack-its-the-question/
bornagain77_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Hazel
Give an example, please.
And perhaps support it with several 500 word irrelevant quotes, links to some obscure YouTube videos and a couple bible verses. :)Ed George_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

ba, are there any good scientific theories today, based on both your criteria: 1) that they are unlikely to change for the better in the future (how would we know that?), and 2) they are based on rigidly mathematical empirical testing? Give an example, please.hazel_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Hazel, like I said before,
You may want to hold that your stated theories started out as ‘good’ scientific theories but I hold that would be merely subjective opinion on your part.
And right on cue you appeal to subjective opinion. Which ironically, empirical science itself could care less about subjective opinions. And as I also stated, the very fact that the 'not so good' scientific theories you listed have had to change as our understanding has improved in and of itself proves that they were 'not so good' scientific theories in the first place as you want to falsely believe. And again, the criteria of a scientific theory being mature enough to be based on a rigid mathematical basis so as to enable empirical testing against its claim, is certainly not an unreasonable measure in orders to regard something as a 'good' scientific theory. Indeed, falsifiablity is considered the gold standard of discerning whether something is truly a good scientific theory or not.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
And also again, Darwinian evolution, since Darwinists refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory, does not even qualify as a real science in the first place, but is more realistically classified as a pseudoscientific religion for atheists. And also again, here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see 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. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is 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. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.bornagain77_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

hazel:
Also, I agree that theories have to be testable, although I don’t think they have to be limited to “rigid mathematical” tests.
And that is why there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.ET_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Just as current evolutionary theory is the one the best explains the evidence we see today.
Nonsense- for one there still isn't any scientific theory of evolution. That is because evolutionism makes untestable claims. Which means it doesn't explain anything. Methinks you don't know what science is nor what a scientific theory entails.ET_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

BA77
Hazel, if the scientific theories you cited had to change to become better then obviously they were ‘not so good’ scientific theories’ to begin with.
They were the theories that best explained the evidence of the day. Just as current evolutionary theory is the one the best explains the evidence we see today. But if we take your claims as being true, that older theories must be bad, does that also mean that the Christianity contemptuously with Christ’s life was poor because we have developed countless variations on it since his death? Hazel
From ba’s point of view, there are almost no good scientific theories, because virtually all theories are going to change to some extent in the future, I am sure. This doesn’t seem like a realistic or useful definition of “good theory.”
According to BA77, Newton’s gravitation theory must be a poor theory because we know it to be incorrect. Yet NASA continues to use it to put probes on Mars. Or that relativity must be wrong because some believe that it contradicts quantum entanglement. Even if this is true, relativity is good enough to allow us to use our GPS.Brother Brian_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Hmmm. This sounds sort of a "no true Scotman's" argument now: it couldn't have really been a good theory if in fact it changed. Many theories which I think we would say are good continue to get refined: good things can get better. Also, I agree that theories have to be testable, although I don't think they have to be limited to "rigid mathematical" tests. From ba's point of view, there are almost no good scientific theories, because virtually all theories are going to change to some extent in the future, I am sure. This doesn't seem like a realistic or useful definition of "good theory."hazel_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Hazel, if the scientific theories you cited had to change to become better then obviously they were 'not so good' scientific theories' to begin with. Moreover, I showed that both of the 'not so good' scientific theories that you cited, as they have changed as our understanding has become better, now support ID not atheistic materialism. That our understanding of atoms in particular would now support ID instead of atheistic materialism, I would call that a rather stunning falsification of atheistic materialism. You may want to hold that your stated theories started out as 'good' scientific theories but I hold that would be merely subjective opinion on your part. I hold that until a scientific theory has some sort of rigid mathematical basis to experimentally test against, (such as we currently have with our present understanding of atoms), then the theory is 'not so good' as a scientific theory to begin with. Let's just say that a scientific theory, if it has to change as our understanding becomes better, has not achieved the level of mathematical maturity necessary to be considered a 'good' scientific theory yet.
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge “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 "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 Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology – Philip S. Skell -The Scientist – August 29, 2005 Excerpt: I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.,,, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
bornagain77_{April 28, 2019
April
04
Apr
28
28
2019
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

But I understood what I was commenting on, ba: you said good theories don't change, and I know quite enough about the history of science to know that is not true. In fact, I gave two examples, and you agreed with me that both of them have changed. That's all that I addressed.hazel_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

ba, I, like most people here I imagine, do not read your posts very thoroughly or completely, if at all,
Is it too late to request a read more button. :)Ed George_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Well maybe it would have behooved you to fully understand what you were trying to comment on before you actually commented? Off topic, what do you think happens to "you", the real "you", when your material body dies Hazel?bornagain77_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Hazel
ba, I, like most people here I imagine, do not read your posts very thoroughly or completely, if at all,
Is it too late to ask for a “read more” button? :)Ed George_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

ba, I, like most people here I imagine, do not read your posts very thoroughly or completely, if at all, for various reasons. I saw, in the first paragraph of 34, the sentence "Good theories do not change," and I commented on that. Other than that point, I've paid no attention to whatever else you've written on this thread (which at one time was about quantum mechanics, as I recall.)hazel_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

LOL Hazel states:
Me: “Moreover, contrary to what you falsely believe, Darwin’s theory is certainly NOT improving. ” Hazel: I said absolutely NOTHING about “Darwin’s theory” Where the heck did you get that from? My remark was simply disagreeing with your statement that “Good scientific theories do not change.”
So you do not want to defend the indefensible proposition that Darwin's theory is improving? :) LOL Anyways Hazel, since my original post, the post that you jumped into the middle of to comment on, was precisely about Darwinism, I was well justified to assume you were trying to defend that theory in particular. You certainly did not make a caveat that you thought Darwinism was not improving and make an exception for it. Again, I was well justified to believe your assertion was inclusive of Darwinism. You criticize me for reading more into what you actually wrote but it seems fairly obvious that you are the one trying to avoid what I actually wrote in my post that you commented on. I could get into nuances to show how Darwinism should, if it were true, line up with the 'hard sciences' such as Newton's theory, but you actions thus far have dissuaded me of doing so. Bottom line, nuances aside, Darwinian evolution, since Darwinists refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory, does not even qualify as a real science in the first place, but is more realistically classified as a pseudoscientific religion for atheists.bornagain77_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

ba77, all I said was that theories change. I said nothing about ID, or materialism, or evolution. You write, "Moreover, the atom is far, far, more complex than the materialists/atheists, since the Greeks, had originally envisioned or ever anticipated with their fallacious ‘billiard ball’ model!" Absolutely, I agree that the atom is far different than our beginning theories about it, going back to the Greeks. This supports my point that theories change. You write, "Moreover, contrary to what you falsely believe, Darwin’s theory is certainly NOT improving. " I said absolutely NOTHING about "Darwin's theory" Where the heck did you get that from? My remark was simply disagreeing with your statement that "Good scientific theories do not change." You certainly read into things much more than are there!hazel_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Moreover, contrary to what you falsely believe, Darwin's theory is certainly NOT improving. It is adding ad hoc theories to cover up its failed predictions. Imre Lakatos and also Thomas Kuhn, of 'paradigm shift' fame, considered such a characteristic of a theory to be a sure sign of a pseudoscience: Imre Lakatos stated that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) – “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/science-and-pseudoscience-overview-and-transcript/
Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term 'paradigm shift, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict."
Thomas Kuhn Excerpt: Thomas Samuel Kuhn (/ku?n/; July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn Inquiry-Based Science Education -- on Everything but Evolution - Sarah Chaffee - January 22, 2016 Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/inquiry-based_s102534.html
And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up ad hoc theories to try to cover up those falsified predictions, then by that ‘predictability’ falsification criteria set out by Lakatos and Kuhn, Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than a real science. Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
As Dr. Hunter states in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
Of humorous note, in regards to a theory adding ad hoc theories to cover up embarrassing findings, the only thing that anyone can ever seem to catch ‘evolving’ in the real world,,
How Biochemist Matti Leisola’s Lab Experience Persuaded Him of Intelligent Design – March 27, 2018 Excerpt: Dr. Leisola (a biochemist),, spoke via Skype recently to a gathering in Dallas and summarized the situation this way: “My experience as a scientist has been that although we can modify microorganisms to do something that we want them to do, or modify proteins to function better, this modification is fairly modest. We really cannot change nature’s system very much, very far. And even when we change the organism to do something we want [it] to do, they usually return to their natural, original state.”,,, ,,,there’s a limit to what can be achieved by bioengineers. Beyond that, nature resists mightily. Even his own design, as an expert researcher and with the most advanced technology at his disposal, is not sufficient to overcome such resistance. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/how-matti-leisolas-lab-experience-persuaded-him-of-intelligent-design/
,,, the only thing that anyone can ever seem to catch ‘evolving’ in the real world is the theory of Darwinian evolution itself. As Dr. Hunter notes in the following article, Darwin’s pseudo-theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.
“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 - Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine - December 2, 2010 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-based-biochemistry-turning.html
And as William James Murray quipped in the following quote, “Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? – Evolution explains everything. –”
“Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. ORFan genes? Evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution.” – Evolution explains everything. – William J Murray
Thus Hazel, you entire rebuttal collapses in on itself. Moreover, to add further insult to injury, you have, or all people, the troll BB agreeing with you.,,, That in and of itself should let you know that you are on the completely wrong path.bornagain77_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Hazel, your attempted dodge of the "refusal to accept falsification of their theory by Darwinists issue" which I clearly laid out, is without merit. You appealed to "the nature of the inside of the earth" and "the theory of atomic structure". Yet, both of those theories you cited, as more evidence has been gathered, (just like what has happened with Darwinism as more evidence has been gathered), now support ID, not atheistic materialism as you apparently falsely imagine and/or presuppose.
“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” Werner Heisenberg Theory of Uncertain Principles - (The "Non-Particle" Basis Of Reality) – video 24:31 minute mark Discovering Science: Uncertain Principles - video https://youtu.be/iu6kqO4L0KQ?t=1471
Moreover, the atom is far, far, more complex than the materialists/atheists, since the Greeks, had originally envisioned or ever anticipated with their fallacious 'billiard ball' model!
Why Science Does Not Disprove God - April 27, 2014 Excerpt: "To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden "wisdom," or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature." Amir D. Aczel - mathematician http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet - LAKHI GOENKA an Engineer - May 2012 Excerpt: Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer. http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/does-the-atom-have-a-designer/
Moreover, atoms are not self existent and/or self sustaining as was originally presupposed by atheistic materialists. Here is a delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms,
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Moreover, the interior of the earth is now known to be extremely fine tuned so as to allow a long term magnetic field to exist (which is necessary for life to exist on earth)
Scientists 'Iron Out' Phenomenon That Sustains Magnetic Field Of Earth - 2 June 2016 Excerpt: "Without Earth's magnetic field, life on the planet might not exist. For 3.4 billion years, this magnetic field has prevented Earth from becoming extremely vulnerable to high-energy particles called cosmic radiation. Scientists know that what generates the protective magnetic field is the low heat conduction of liquid iron in the planet's outer core. This phenomenon is known as "geodynamo." However, although geodynamo has been identified, experts have yet to understand how it was first created and sustained all throughout history....In the end, researchers found that the ability of iron to transmit heat were not at par with previous estimates of thermal conductivity in the core. It was actually between 18 and 44 watts per meter per kelvin. This suggests that the energy needed to sustain the geodynamo has been present since very early in Earth's history, researchers concluded. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/162458/20160602/scientists-iron-out-phenomenon-that-sustains-magnetic-field-of-earth.htm Strong planetary magnetic fields like Earth's may protect oceans from stellar storms - March 14, 2019 Excerpt: A study by scientists at ANU on the magnetic fields of planets has found that most planets discovered in other solar systems are unlikely to be as hospitable to life as Earth. Plants and animals would not survive without water on Earth. The sheer strength of Earth's magnetic field helps to maintain liquid water on our blue planet's surface, thereby making it possible for life to thrive. Scientists from the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics modelled the magnetic fields of exoplanets—planets beyond our solar system—and found very few have a magnetic field as strong as Earth. They contend that techniques for finding exoplanets the size of Earth are more likely to find slowly rotating planets locked to their host star in the same way the Moon is locked to Earth, with the same side always facing their host star. The lead author of the study, Ph.D. scholar Sarah McIntyre, said strong magnetic fields may be necessary to keep wet rocky exoplanets habitable.,,, "Venus and Mars have negligible magnetic fields and do not support life, while Earth's magnetic field is relatively strong and does," she said. "We find most detected exoplanets have very weak magnetic fields, so this is an important factor when searching for potentially habitable planets." https://m.phys.org/news/2019-03-strong-planetary-magnetic-fields-earth.html
bornagain77_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

BA77
BB claims ” The teaching of evolution, like all good sciences, changes with the times as new information is discovered and the theories adjusted to account for it.” That statement is a joke.
The best response to this is a concatenation. Of a male bovine and solid excrement. If you don’t realize this, you have little to add to this conversation.Brother Brian_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

ba77 writes,
Good scientific theories do not change. Newton’s theory of Gravity has not changed one iota since Newton first formulated it. When evidence came in that Newton’s theory could not explain, particularly the anomalous orbit of Mercury, physicists knew, after a couple of blind alleys, that Newton’s theory, although approximate, was incorrect. Newton’s theory was not modified in any way, shape, or form, (though some may have tried), but was eventually entirely replaced by the entirely new theoretical framework of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
In general, I disagree with that. Many theories incrementally improve in their ability to accurately describe the world, to describe parts of the world that originally were not considered, to interact with other theories, etc. To say that is "not change" doesn't seem accurate to me. For instance, our theories about the nature of the inside of the earth have changed since it was first shown that the earth has a solid core about 80 years ago. Since then improvements in various type of measurements have improved many details about the theory. Or take the theory of atomic structure: it has a fascinating history ending in the current quantum picture of quarks, etc accounting for the more classical element s of proton, electrons, neutrons, nuclei, electron shells, etc. It would be wrong to say that that theory hasn't changed. I think most theories do change: few have had as radical an overhaul as Newton's theory of gravity.hazel_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

BB claims " The teaching of evolution, like all good sciences, changes with the times as new information is discovered and the theories adjusted to account for it." That statement is a joke. Good scientific theories do not change. Newton's theory of Gravity has not changed one iota since Newton first formulated it way back in the late 17th century. When evidence came in that Newton's theory could not explain, particularly the anomalous orbit of Mercury, physicists knew, after a couple of blind alleys, that Newton's theory, although approximate, was incorrect. Newton's theory was not modified in any way, shape, or form, (though some may have tried), but was eventually entirely replaced by the entirely new theoretical framework of Einstein's theory of general relativity.
When Did Isaac Newton Finally Fail? - May 20, 2016 Excerpt: The first idea was that there was a planet interior to Mercury with the right properties to cause that additional advance, or that the Sun’s corona was very massive; either one of those could cause the additional gravitational effects needed. But the Sun’s corona isn’t massive, and there is no Vulcan (and we’ve looked!), so that’s out. The second idea came from two scientists?—?Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall?—?who determined that if you replaced Newton’s inverse square law, which says that gravity falls off as one over the distance to the power of 2, with a law that says gravity falls off as one over the distance to the power of 2.0000001612, you could get that extra precession. As we know today, that would mess up the observed orbits of the Moon, Venus and Earth, so that’s out. And the third hint came from Henri Poincare, who noted that if you took Einstein’s special relativity into account?—?the fact that Mercury moves around the Sun at 48 km/s on average, or 0.016% the speed of light?—?you get part (but not all) of the missing precession. It was putting those second and third ideas together that led to general relativity. The idea that there was a fabric?—?a spacetime?—?came from one of Einstein’s former teachers, Hermann Minkowski, and when Poincare applied that concept to the problem of Mercury’s orbit, there was an important step towards the missing solution. The idea by Newcomb and Hall, although incorrect, showed that if gravity were stronger than Newton’s predictions by the orbit of Mercury, additional precession could occur. Einstein’s big idea, of course, was that the presence of matter/energy results in a curvature of space, and that the closer you are to a more massive object, the stronger gravity behaves. Not only that, but the greater the departure is from the predictions of Newtonian gravity as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/20/when-did-isaac-newton-finally-fail/
Evolution, in contrast to a good scientific theory, such as Newton's theory of Gravity which could be falsified and discarded for a better scientific theory, simply refuses falsification. Or more precisely I should say, (since the foundational precepts of Darwinism are indeed falsifiable), that Darwinists themselves refuse to accept falsification of their theory since they would then have to accept the correct theoretical framework of Intelligent Design.,, And that is simply unacceptable for them no matter what scientific evidence contradicts their preferred atheistic theory, i.e. Darwin's theory. Like I said, it is not that Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable, it is that Darwinists themselves refuse to accept falsification of their theory.
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
Here are a few more falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see 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. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is 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. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming (Methodological) Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Bottom line, by any reasonable measure by which someone may wish to judge whether a proposition is even scientific or not, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
In short, Darwinian evolution, since it fails to even qualify as a science in any meaningful sense, is much more realistically classified as a pseudoscientific religion for atheists. Darwinists, (and I have no doubt that many of them are sincere in their belief that Darwinism is truly ‘scientific’), are simply profoundly deceived in their belief that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
The teaching of evolution, like all good sciences, changes with the times as new information is discovered and the theories adjusted to account for it.
And yet the "evidence" for the alleged evolution of eyes/ vision systems has remained pretty much the same-> there exist populations with differing complexities of eyes/ vision systems in organisms of differing complexities. For the most part the teaching of evolution has always been a story-telling venture. That "new information" goes into the new narratives. And the narratives always fail the science test.ET_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

BA77
If these facts are well known, One is forced to wonder why neo-Darwinism has such a hegemony on education still today.
Are you referring to the neo-Darwinism in the 1890s, or the neo-Darwinism in the 1940s, or the neo-Darwinism in the 21st century? The teaching of evolution, like all good sciences, changes with the times as new information is discovered and the theories adjusted to account for it.Brother Brian_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

", well over 40 years ago, we were taught that embryonic development and the subsequent end product were not determined by the DNA alone." If these facts are well known, One is forced to wonder why neo-Darwinism has such a hegemony on education still today. A few more semi-related notes:
,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Denis Noble - Rocking the foundations of biology - video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184 "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html Embryonic Development Reveals Staggering Complexity - January 23, 2018 Excerpt: I recently cited a paper on the evolution of embryonic development and how the evidence contradicts evolutionary theory and common descent. Even the evolutionists, though in understated terms, admitted there were problems. Evolutionary analyses are “reaching their limits,” it is difficult to “conclude anything about evolutionary origins,” genetic similarities “do not necessarily imply common ancestry,” and “conserved regulatory networks can become unrecognizably divergent.” In other words, like all other disciplines within the life sciences, embryonic development is not working. The science contradicts the theory. But there is much more to the paper, and as a reader noticed, the authors give a rather blunt admission of the magnitude of the problem, not often seen in the literature: ,,, "One of the main reasons for Duboule’s pessimism about the return of the EvoDevo comet is the staggering complexity and diversity of cellular and developmental regulatory processes. The configuration space for realistic models of such systems is vast, high dimensional, and potentially infinitely complex.",,, Staggering complexity? Staggering diversity? The configuration space is vast and high-dimensional? And it is potentially infinitely complex? And we are to believe this is the product of random mutations? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/01/embryonic-development-reveals.html
bornagain77_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
When I was at university, well over 40 years ago, we were taught that embryonic development and the subsequent end product were not determined by the DNA alone.
Know we know that DNA only influences and helps control development. We still do not know what determines the subsequent end product. And that is just one reason why universal common descent is untestable.ET_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

BA77
In making this point clear, it is first important to learn that many lines of evidence have now revealed that the biological form and/or shape of any particular organism is not reducible to the sequential information on DNA.
This isn’t exactly groundbreaking news. When I was at university, well over 40 years ago, we were taught that embryonic development and the subsequent end product were not determined by the DNA alone. And given that much that is taught st school was discovered many years earlier, I can only assume that this was well understood long before I was introduced to it.Brother Brian_{April 27, 2019
April
04
Apr
27
27
2019
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply