Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID and “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science”

arroba Email

Further to “New science organization offers to set science free from materialism” (After TED Talks removed Rupert Sheldrake’s talk on—you guessed it—the problems with materialism in science), here is Open Science’s Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science (.pdf):

We are a group of internationally known scientists, from a variety of scientific fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, psychiatry), who participated in an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality and society. The summit was co-organized by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD and Mario Beauregard, PhD, the University of Arizona, and Lisa Miller, PhD, Columbia University. This summit was held at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona, on February 7-9, 2014. Our purpose was to discuss the impact of the materialist ideology on science and the emergence of a post-materialist paradigm for science, spirituality, and society. We have come to the following conclusions: More.

Friends of UD weighed in on the numbered conclusions, and here is what they said:

The first six points read like Phillip Johnson, the founder of the intelligent design community.

However, Point 7—one friend says—distorts quantum mechanics (QM), in that QM does not posit immateriality but rather the non-locality and wave-like nature of matter.

Points 8-18 sound to many like a defense of dualism. But, they wonder, why must we embrace dualism in order to dump dogmatic materialism (DM)?

There are many reasons to dismiss DM as a correct account of nature. There is no need to take on the burden of defending dualism in consequence. In the same way, one can defend the evidence for design in nature without attempting a dogmatic position on the nature of the designer.

Some worry that the document tends to conflate “mind” and “spirituality”, though they are actually different things. For example, animals have minds, but don’t apparently pursue spirituality.

Others noted that a shorter Manifesto might be better: The greater the detail, the fewer who will agree. Whereas the obvious problem of the sheer uselessness of materialism in addressing issues like consciousness or the high level of information in life forms ought to be evident to most thinking people.

Some are quite concerned about point 15 d):

d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds.

Well, maybe, maybe not. But do we have to buy into that stuff, just to see that materialism/naturalism is a circus whose ever-increasing numbers of wagons travelling in a circle  don’t and can’t just leave town?

Here’s betting that we can get the circus to just leave town, without buying into stuff we hardly understand. We can start sorting wheat from chaff  later.

Information theory may offer some promising paths. See, for example, Data Basic.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

ID has more going for it than evolutionism ever will. Science requires TESTABILITY and evolutionism cannot be tested as it doesn't have any testable entailments. Joe
WJM, don't kid yourself. ID is dead in the water CHartsil
More refreshing news! Looks like the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. William J Murray
At the end of the day the belief that there was nothing & nothing happened to nothing & then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything & then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs is what materialists believe. Makes Perfect Sense ;) humbled
Aaaand censorship CHartsil
CHartsil is back with us again briefly, doing his usual voodoo doll and pin dance. And rvb8 is on a short fuse with O'Leary for News, due to his unwarranted attack on Suzan Mazur on another thread. Enjoy them; they might not be here long. They're best taken in small doses. News
>That damage control though. Hey, why don't you make a video about it JJ ;) CHartsil
Goodnight CHartsil and thanks for being such a good sport at playing the stooge. You are far better apologist for ID than your realize! :) bornagain77
>Not understanding that he's posting articles about identical proteins If you had actually read (see: understood) the articles you're blindly copying and pasting you would realize they're saying that while 70% of proteins are identical the rest are nearly identical https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationEvolutionDebate/ CHartsil
"Your point of thinking HGT is a hoax and that homology is done by comparing a few proteins?" So protein coding regions are not of primary importance but whole genome sequencing is? But if so then the genetic homology between chimps and human drops dramatically! Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% by Jeffrey Tomkins on February 20, 2013 Excerpt: there is a great deal of preferential and selective treatment of the data being analyzed. In many cases, only the most promising data such as gene-rich sequences that exist in both species (homologs) is utilized from a much larger data pool. This pre-selected data is often further subjected to more filtering before being analyzed and discussed. Non-alignable regions and large gaps in DNA sequence alignments are also typically omitted, thus increasing the levels of reported similarity. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v6/comprehensive-analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/ Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 podcast: Dr. Richard Sternberg presents evidence that refutes the myth that the human genome is full of junk DNA. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna/#more-26791 Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve? SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-and-science-in-conflict/ bornagain77
Your point of thinking HGT is a hoax and that homology is done by comparing a few proteins? Got it https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationEvolutionDebate/ CHartsil
>Behe Still clings to the bacterial flagella >Berlinski Thought his not understanding mutation rates was an argument against whale evolution >Wells Thought busting open a bacteria and it not reforming was evidence against abiogenesis >Axe Thought four random computer simulations was enough to declare protein folding impossible I'm sure the rest are just as embarrassing. CHartsil
Well, I'm satisfied that I've made my points clear. Thanks for providing a counterpoint so as to show the unbiased readers how shallow the Darwinian position is. Disclaimer: No ID does not pay CHartsil, and he is not a plant from ID. ,,,,Fake ID sites, that really takes the cake! :) Thanks for helping ID out so much. bornagain77
I miss Michael J Behe, David Berlinski, Paul Chien, William A Dembski, Michael Denton, David DeWolf, Guillermo Gonzalez, Bruce L Gordon, Jay W Richards, Gordon E Mullings, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, Cornelius G Hunter, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger,David Keller, Matti Leisola, Philip Lu, Robert J. Marks II, Colin Reeves, Mariclair Reeves and Lisanne Winslow on that list. sparc
"Horizontal gene transfer, especially for higher organisms, is another Darwinian ‘just so’ story:" So you're telling me you think you have a hard line on the pulse of a scientific revolution and you don't know that HGT is a fact? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18591983 >Even more striking is that the set of genes involved in each of those song innovations is remarkably similar to the genes involved in human speaking ability. >remarkably similar "Moreover, the facebook cites that you listed are fake sites that dishonest Darwinists put up as a sham to try to fool people (but you knew that already)." >A creationist accusing someone of being dishonest Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationEvolutionDebate/ CHartsil
Horizontal gene transfer, especially for higher organisms, is another Darwinian 'just so' story: Evolutionists Celebrated This Prediction But When it Later Failed They Didn’t Care - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: Sometimes their use of this lateral or horizontal gene transfer mechanism is a real stretch. And in any case, their story calls for evolution to have created this incredible mechanism which then was so important for adaptation and the supposed subsequent evolution. In other words, evolution created evolution.,,, In some cases evolutionists have no idea, beyond pure speculation, about how it could have happened. As they admit in one paper: "An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolutionists-celebrated-this.html An Enzyme’s Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case of Convergent Evolution – Jonathan M. – February 11, 2013 Excerpt: The authors attempt to account for the incongruity by positing that “the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” They thus attribute the shared genes to horizontal gene transfer (with no offered mechanism), a proposition that has become a catch-all to explain away severe conflicts between evolutionary phylogenies.,,, “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception” (Dávalos et al., 2012). Is it possible that the real reason for such striking and widespread phylogenetic discordance is that evolutionary biologists are looking at biology through the wrong lens? Could the reason that there is so much difficulty in correlating organisms to a tree be that no such tree exists? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/an_enzymes_phyl068911.html Moreover, If you would dig a little you would find the cites:,,, for example Of the 29 papers covering everything from penguin evolution to color vision, eight are devoted to bird song. One of the Dec. 12 papers in Science found there is a consistent set of just over 50 genes that show higher or lower activity in the brains of vocal learning birds and humans. These changes were not found in the brains of birds that do not have vocal learning and of non-human primates that do not speak, according to this Duke team, which was led by Jarvis; Andreas Pfenning, a graduate of the Ph.D. program in computational biology and bioinformatics (CBB); and Alexander Hartemink, professor of computer science, statistical science and biology. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141211142429.htm moreover Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php Moreover, the facebook cites that you listed are fake sites that dishonest Darwinists put up as a sham to try to fool people (but you knew that already). A real ID site on facebook is here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ bornagain77
The unbelievable arrogance of jumping from poor idea 'design-designer', to paradigm shift in western scientific thought, is mind boggling egotism even for this scientifically poorly resourced site. There is no 'post materialism' largely because there is no present materialism, just science. Get on board, or get ignored. Oh dear, BA is once again quoting this site, and evolutionnews, to say that this site, and evolutionnews, agree with everything that this site, and evolutionnews say. What a shocker! rvb8
"How about a shark being more homologous to a mammal than to a fish?" That's single proteins, I'm talking whole genome sequencing. "Moreover, amphibians do not even match each other" There's no citation of that paper on the blog you linked and a search for the excerpt turns up nothing. "In fact, Genetic evidence is all over the place and does not fit Darwinian predictions at all." If you had actually read, or understood, the article, you would've known that it's talking about horizontal gene transfer. "As well, when vastly different species have very similar genes, Darwinists simply invoke the magic of convergent genetic evolution. Thus your ‘rigid’ criteria for falsification is met and yet Darwinism is still not falsified!" Again, searching for those findings returns no peer reviewed articles. Nothing on the identical genes between birds and humans at all. Citing sources would be great. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationEvolutionDebate/ CHartsil
as to "Find an amphibian more genetically homologous to a mammal than another amphibian. Bam, falsified. Don’t confuse unfalsified for unfalsifiable." How about a shark being more homologous to a mammal than to a fish?
Shark and human proteins “stunningly similar”; shark closer to human than to zebrafish - December 9, 2013 Excerpt: “We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish,” Stanhope said. “Although sharks and bony fishes are not closely related, they are nonetheless both fish … while mammals have very different anatomies and physiologies. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/shark-and-human-proteins-stunningly-similar-shark-closer-to-human-than-to-zebrafish/
Moreover, amphibians do not even match each other
Laszlo Bencze: So evolution is a poor at predicting results? - April 29, 2014 Excerpt: recent studies have shown that species which look very similar and behave similarly can have vastly different genetic structure (notably frogs). In other words the genetic studies do not accord with studies based on phenotype. So much for certainty. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/laszlo-bencze-so-evolution-is-a-poor-at-predicting-results/
In fact, Genetic evidence is all over the place and does not fit Darwinian predictions at all.
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#more
As well, when vastly different species have very similar genes, Darwinists simply invoke the magic of convergent genetic evolution. Thus your 'rigid' criteria for falsification is met and yet Darwinism is still not falsified!
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry - Casey Luskin February 9, 2015 Excerpt: Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,, Biochemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution.126 Each case shows an example where biological similarity -- even at the genetic level -- is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. So what does this do to the main assumption of tree-building that biological similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor? With so many exceptions to the rule, one has to wonder if the rule itself holds merit.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_7_conve091161.html Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes - Erika Check Hayden - 04 September 2013 Excerpt: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,” says molecular phylogeneticist Frédéric Delsuc at the The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Montpellier in France, who was not involved in the study. What is more, he adds, the genes involved are not just the few, obvious ones known to be directly involved in a trait but a broader array of genes that are involved in the same regulatory networks. http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679 Newly Discovered Convergent Genetic Evolution Between Bird and Human Vocalization Poses a Severe Challenge to Common Ancestry - Casey Luskin - December 15, 2014 Excerpt: "We've known for many years that the singing behavior of birds is similar to speech in humans -- not identical, but similar -,,, "But we didn't know whether or not those features were the same because the genes were also the same." "Now scientists do know, and the answer is yes -- birds and humans use essentially the same genes to speak.",,, "there is a consistent set of just over 50 genes,,," "These changes were not found in the brains of birds that do not have vocal learning and of non-human primates that do not speak," So certain birds and humans use the same genes for vocalization -- but those genetic abilities are absent in non-human primates and birds without vocal learning? If not derived from a common ancestor, as they clearly were not, how did the genes get there? This kind of extreme convergent genetic evolution points strongly to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/newly_discovere092041.html
Moreover, contrary to what you believe, your falsification entails 'proving another idea correct' or 'evidencing another claim'. All falsifications do as such unless no other theory is yet available! good night. bornagain77
"Neo-Darwinism, which is a naturalistic theory, is not subject to falsification" Find an amphibian more genetically homologous to a mammal than another amphibian. Bam, falsified. Don't confuse unfalsified for unfalsifiable. "On the other hand, Intelligent Design is subject to falsification and is thus, on your own reasoning, a ‘scientific model’" 1: A claim being falsifiable is necessary but not alone sufficient in making it a scientific model 2: That's a digital simulation and is shifting the burden. Falsification does not mean "Prove another idea correct instead". It means forming a set of criteria within the scope of the assertion/model by which it can be shown to be false. Notice how my falsification criteria for evolution did not involve evidencing another claim. CHartsil
as to:
"Naturalism is *still* required for science because a scientific model has to be subject to falsifiability and constant certain variables."
In terms of demanding falsification, you are in good company:
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518
Yet in terms of thinking that Naturalism is falsifiable you have a problem. Neo-Darwinism, which is a naturalistic theory, is not subject to falsification and is thus, by your reasoning, not a 'scientific' model.
The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
On the other hand, Intelligent Design is subject to falsification and is thus, on your own reasoning, a 'scientific model':
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_
Of related note, in the following video Dr. Ross compares all of the models for the creation of the universe and finds that the scientific evidence continues to grow stronger and stronger for the Old Earth creation model and continues to 'falsify' the naturalistic models and the Young Earth creation model for the creation of the universe:
Hugh Ross Testing RTB's Creation Model - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlYzYMDpTwY
Naturalism is *still* required for science because a scientific model has to be subject to falsifiability and constant certain variables. CHartsil

Leave a Reply