Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Information and the First Cause

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Eric Hedin writes:

The famous American physicist John Wheeler did not shy away from seeking to understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe. Wheeler coined the aphorism “It from bit” to describe his conviction, born of the many discoveries in particle physics and cosmology in the twentieth century, that information (characterized by the computer storage term “bit”) preceded and produced everything else (“it”). He elaborated:

Otherwise put, every it—every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.

John Archibald Wheeler shortly before his death. www.themarginalian.org

It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.1

Thus, in Wheeler’s conception, information precedes and transcends matter, energy, time, and space.

We also know, as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has emphasized, that in every case where we are able to trace information back to a source, we arrive at an intelligent agent—a poet or computer programmer or composer or architect.2 When we couple the “It from Bit” insight with this observation regarding our uniform experience with information creation, we are led toward a conclusion that strongly echoes a core claim of theistic religion such as we find in the Hebrew scriptures announcing that nature “pours forth speech” and is the result of a divine mind’s spoken words “in the beginning”3—or, as one of the New Testament authors put it, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “all things were made through him.”4

Quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger, in reviewing Wheeler’s contributions to quantum phenomena, notes this same connection between the discoveries of modern physics and what he terms “old knowledge.” Zeilinger states:

In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Then the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: ‘In the beginning was the Word.’5

[1] John A. Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley, 1990).

[2] John Archibald Wheeler, A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1990). John Archibald Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” in Feynman and Computing, edited by Anthony J. G. Hey (Boca Raton, FL; Taylor and Francis Group LLC, 2002), 109.

[3] Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 394-395.

[4] Psalm 19, Genesis 1.

[5] John 1:1, 3a.

Excerpted from Canceled Science (ch. 12), by Eric Hedin.

Comments
Jerry: Vinyl is back. It gives better sound. It gives a different sound than a pure digital recording and playback. But, I should think, a good equaliser could reproduce the 'warmer' tones of vinyl. Me, I'm tired of playing albums until they're white and having to buy them again.JVL
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Dissenting voices provide a needful foil. On rare occasions I find myself agreeing with a statement made by someone who does not share my worldview. Chuck Darwin writes @8: "Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity ...". With that statement I agree wholeheartedly. And I must confess to being a "young earth creationist". I agree with plant geneticist John Sanford at the 4:20+- mark of this video of his interview by James Tour: https://youtu.be/i-y_dmi_oF4 Yet, if I understand the purpose of this Uncommon Descent website, it is not for us to debate the accuracy of or any interpretation of the Bible (there are many other websites which serve that purpose), but instead to focus on the scientific evidence and reasoning for and against intelligent design, as well as the reasoning for and against the viewpoint that everything we see around us has a materialist explanation. I am thankful for the opportunity to check on this site and see recent scientific findings and interpretations announced and debated.Blastus
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
ChuckyD repeats, like a broken record no less, the same refuted Darwinian lies over and over again, and then complains when someone bothers to repeatedly show that his endlessly repeated lies are bunk, and indeed that those endlessly repeated lies can actually be used against his Darwinian worldview with much greater effectiveness than they can be used against Christianity. In this case, Darwinists constantly making false religious claims in order make up for the fact that they have no real-time empirical evidence to support their atheistic worldview. ChuckyD may not like the sound of my music, but refuting endlessly repeated Darwinian lies with the truth is sweet music to my ears.
Oh What a Glorious Night-Sidewalk Prophets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGLV5CfoTU Aaron Shust - O Come O Come Emmanuel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdrRueJjqo0 Ode To Joy - 4 Guys, 3 min, 2 cellos, 1 piano - ThePianoGuys - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17GLE-16_3g Jackie Evancho - The First Noel http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FEC9BJNU John Tesh • We Three Kings • Christmas in Positano, Italy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJbfLcD9O9s Joy Williams - 2000 Decembers ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W8K3OhxVSw Pentatonix - Angels We Have Heard On High - A Capella https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAMzAIH12yc Third Day - Manger Throne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CbWXf1Gw-w
Verse:
Psalm 150: 1-6 Hallelujah!a Praise God in His sanctuary. Praise Him in His mighty heavens. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him for His excellent greatness. Praise Him with the sound of the horn; praise Him with the harp and lyre. Praise Him with tambourine and dancing; praise Him with strings and flute. Praise Him with clashing cymbals; praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Hallelujah!
bornagain77
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Vinyl is back for like the next ten minutes. A fad is a fad--just like ID.....chuckdarwin
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
the transition from vinyl records
Vinyl is back. It gives better sound. Question: Is ChuckDarwin a broken vinyl?jerry
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
BA77 One of the nice things about the transition from vinyl records to CDs and MP3s is that we didn't have to listen to broken records any longer. I think it's time for you to update your technology and spare us all your collection of broken records.......chuckdarwin
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
That is not a prudent thing to write
But, no one here understands punctuated equilibrium. It is a mechanism not an outcome. I have explained it a couple of times here and no one has picked up on it. It was pointed to by Alan MacNeil several years ago who believed in it. Hint: a few years after his death a journal of evolutionary biology devoted an entire issue to Gould. The opening article of this issue describes the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium in detail. Aside: I have said several times that this mechanism cannot explain Evolution. And there is a straightforward research approach that would solve the issue forever. It would also destroy Darwinian processes as a mechanism for Evolution. But no one is interested. The most important question is why. Everyone here focuses on Darwinian processes which are real and accepted by ID but cannot explain Evolution. Best examples are his finches. Punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to overcome the obvious shortcomings of Darwinian processes to explain Evolution. But it too is lacking in explanatory power.     Let’s go Finches! jerry
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
That ChuckyD would try to hold Christians to a YEC interpretation of the Bible, and that he would be upset that Christians would, none-the-less, find significant overlap between empirical science and Christianity, is laughable. ChuckyD's own Darwinian worldview, since he has no real-time empirical evidence for even a single functional protein arising by unguided Darwinian processes,,,,
Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. A great deal of flexibility was discovered. Still, it is hard to see how any of this could build proteins—that is, in the sense of building their fundamental shapes, or scaffolds; and build proteins in terms of explaining the key catalytic strategies of each active site. Even in the impressive demonstration of a transition through nine orders of magnitude, in which a full exchange of a promiscuous activity for the primary activity was seen, the overall geometry of the protein was unchanged, and, although substrates had changed, the fundamental active site strategy stayed the same. ,,, “Modern neo-Darwinism and neutral evolutionary treatments,” remark Leonard Bogarad and Michael Deem, “fail to explain satisfactorily the generation of the diversity of life found on our planet.” It is not that they did not evolve, they say, but that “... most theoretical treatments of evolution consider only the limited point-mutation events that form the basis of these theories.” Their sober conclusion is that “point mutation alone is incapable of evolving systems with substantially new protein folds.”60,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins
ChuckyD's own Darwinian worldview, since he has no real-time empirical evidence, happens to be crucially, even vitally, dependent on faulty theological presuppositions. (Which should not be surprising since all of modern science is itself vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions; see Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis") From when Darwin first wrote "Origin",,,
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/
To today, evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
Without faulty theological presuppositions, Darwinian arguments simply collapse in on themselves,
Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't - Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02 The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44
As Dr. Cornelius Hunter noted, instead of a empirical science that is subject to testing, Darwinian is, in reality, best thought of as a "theological research program."
Evolution as a Theological Research Program - by Cornelius Hunter - August 2021 Abstract Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution interacted with non-empirical factors including a range of theological concerns. The influence of these theological concerns is typically modeled as secondary to that of empirical evidence. In both Darwin’s thought and later development of the theory of evolution, theological concerns have been viewed as serving in a range of possible roles. However, the theological concerns have consistently been viewed as, ultimately, subservient to empirical science. In the end, science has the final say regarding the content and evaluation of the theory. Here, this paper demonstrates the failure of this model. Theological concerns do have primacy over the science. They motivate the development of evolutionary theory, and they control the interpretation of the empirical evidence and justification of the theory. It is more accurate to view evolution as a theological research program. Introduction Excerpt: ,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational. The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm
In fact, as Dr. Hunter noted elsewhere, the only thing that is not forfeitable in Darwin's theory is atheistic naturalism itself, other than that, and as far as empirical evidence is concerned, anything goes.
There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - November 10, 2022 Excerpt: What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right? Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation. Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - PhD. Biophysics https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
Darwin's theory, at least how Darwinists treat their theory, is simply not falsifiable by empirical observation. Here are few falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply ignore as if they do not matter,
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. 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 be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. 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. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. 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 the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the 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). 6. 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. 7. 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.” 8. 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 modern versions of it.” 9. 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’. 10. 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! 11. 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!. 12. 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. 13. 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! 14. Darwinists, 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 are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Darwinism vs. Falsification - link to defense of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
Thus ChuckyD complaint that Christians ignore empirical evidence that falsifies a YEC interpretation of the Bible is laughable and is the height of hypocrisy. ChuckyD's own Darwinian worldview has been repeatedly falsified many times over by numerous lines of evidence. All to no avail, since, in reality, as Dr. Cornelius Hunter pointed out, Darwinian evolution is, first and foremost, a 'theological research program' that is vitally dependent on false theological presuppositions, and the only thing that is not forfeitable in Darwinian evolution, the only thing that is truly mandated in the theory, is atheistic naturalism itself. Other than that, and as far as empirical science is concerned, anything goes. In short, Darwin evolution is certainly NOT a empirical science that is subject to empirical falsification, but is, in reality, nothing but the religion of atheistic naturalism masquerading as a empirical science. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either. Nobody else here does." That is not a prudent thing to write. Part of the evolutionary paradigm is that development, after life begins, is a long-drawn-out gradual process of minute changes and that the fossil record will show intermediate or transitional (part-way) forms before arriving at a stable form. Unquestionably, though, present data shows no prevalent pattern of gradual, minor, changes in the fossil record; instead, large gaps are observed. This disconcerting observation led to a dramatic contradiction of a significant part of the evolution paradigm, namely, gaps are now to be expected. The most important paper setting out that gaps are now to be expected, punctuated equilibria, is the hugely influential essay 'Models in Paleobiology' by Niles Eldridge and Steven J Gould. That paper oddly begins with an ‘Editorial Introduction’ which states, "throughout the paper runs a larger and more important lesson: a priori theorems often determine the results of “empirical” studies before the first shred of evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dictates what one sees, cannot be stated too strongly.” One way of interpreting the editorial introduction is that the editor warns that the two authors seek to do particularly what he warns against generally; in this specific case that they argue that they look at unavailability of evidence with an a priori belief of the paradigm of evolution. In the paper, Eldridge and Gould proposed that the missing gradual little steps in the fossil record showed what they called 'punctuated equilibria' a term to mean that that this organism evolved from that organism but the transition happened too quickly in each case for preservation of fossils. The authors put the case so:- "The extreme scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Now, depending on source, the Burgess Shale covers a period of 5 million to 20 million years but taking the lowest figure, no transitionals are seen in the Burgess Shale because 5 million years is too short a time to show the intermediate fossils. Put differently, punctuated equilibria is a theory with a promise that missing evidence will be found one day. When found, it will explain why the fossil record is incomparably better at recording fossils of organisms than at recording fossils of intermediate forms of organisms.Belfast
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @29,
No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion. Given how freely Querius opines on evolution, I’m surprised at his unfamiliarity with the term.
Actually, I'm familiar with the concept, but not with the acronym. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The independence model holds that science and religion explore separate domains that ask distinct questions. Stephen Jay Gould developed an influential independence model with his NOMA principle (“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”)
But in thinking about this, I can agree more with the dialogue model:
The dialogue model proposes a mutualistic relationship between religion and science.
But in thinking about it, I'm aware of a number of examples of demonstrable overlap. - I've already mentioned the comparison of the current description of the scientific method with a nearly identical instantiated description in the Bible written about 2,600 years ago. - More directly, what do you do with this published report? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234287/ And you still haven't responded to the information in my previous comments. -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion
How stupid can one get? You missed my sarcasm about what NOMA meant. I bet you don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is about either. Nobody else here does.jerry
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
No, Jerry. NOMA is SJG’s concept to segregate science and religion. Given how freely Querius opines on evolution, I’m surprised at his unfamiliarity with the term.chuckdarwin
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
NOMA is Gould’s separation of church and state. Non-overlapping magisteria.jerry
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
P.S. And while you're at it, check out this article from Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @21, Sorry, I don’t follow you at all. I don’t know what a NOMA is, much less a “quasi-NOMA position.” And yes, I freely admit that I don’t use the scientific method when playing music, taking my wife out on dates, sitting on the toilet, playing sports, eating a wonderful supper or many other activities that makes us human. I RESIST melding them together or rationalizing them. However, they are all COMPATIBLE within my human experience. Same with the Bible. My position is that I RESIST forcing current scientific beliefs into the Bible or vice versa. I notice that some of scientific beliefs currently appear compatible with the Biblical narrative, which is fine for now and enables me to resist the mockery of pseudo-scientific arrogance. And just as the complexity of the chiral-induced spin selectivity in how electrons pass through molecules is beyond most people, how much more complex and different is the underlying truth behind the activities and thoughts of God?
It’s not just a wink and a nod, you explicitly fess up to being aware that you are doing it.
So what? I’m open and aware that all that such examples that I provided demonstrate is a compatibility between what’s revealed in the Bible to what we’ve discovered using the scientific method despite the continuous assertions that science is somehow superior, obviating what the Bible addresses, which is pretty much everything that makes life worth living. In contrast, let me be EMPHATIC that my objections to Darwinism aren’t based on the Bible. Please re-scan the previous sentence. My objections to Darwinism are based on many observations and discoveries demonstrating that Darwinism is a crappy, outdated, frequently falsified, scientific theory generated to rationalize racism and colonialism from 150 years ago. It’s about as scientific as phrenology and the blatantly racist and genocidal eugenics movement against indigenous peoples started in 1883 by Charles Darwin’s cousin that was directly inspired by Darwinism. You need to own that. There’s NOTHING in my comments that you can quote, in which I claim that Archbishop Ussher’s view of Genesis is something “I own.” And you’ve evaded everything concrete that I posted shredding your hopeless position and demonstrating that your Darwinism is a religion to you, not science. Let's see whether you can prove otherwise. -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even go one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”
Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/
And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,, Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. Elise Crullis assistant professor in history and philosophy of science at the City College of New York.,,, https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012 Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems. In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation. Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit. Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. - per physorg Quantum contextuality Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,, Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,, 1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality
And as Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger (Oct. 2022) stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
And as Anton Zeilinger also pointed out in his recent 2022 Nobel lecture, when it comes to the various predictions of quantum mechanics that blatantly disregard space and time, "That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,,
"There's one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,, - Anton Zeilinger - 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics - video (1:50:07 mark) https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607 Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland - Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.
Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified. In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.” Thus in conclusion, ChuckyD can try to hide in 'deep-time' all he wants, but it simply does not matter. As far as the quantum correlations we find in molecular biology, and the quantum correlations we find with the 'observer', are concerned, ""no story in space and time can describe". ChuckyD's Darwinian materialism is simply a non-starter in providing an adequate explanation for quantum correlations in our body and with our minds. ,,, As far as real empirical science is concerned, these consistent findings from quantum mechanics are NOT a minor problem for ChuckyD's worldview of Darwinian materialism. If ChuckyD were intellectually honest to the empirical evidence, he would, or at least should, drop his Darwinian worldview in a heartbeat Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Supplemental note:
Sept. 2022 – Thus in conclusion Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-765987
bornagain77
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Things get worse for ChuckyD. Besides our body being based on quantum principles, our mind is also found to be intertwined with quantum mechanics, and is, therefore, also irreducible to ChuckyD's materialistic 'toolbox' of matter, energy, time, and space. “Duration", and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
Henri Bergson, (a prominent philosopher of the early 20th century), as the following article points out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the following article states, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”.
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this, (disagreement between Einstein and Bergson), expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us. In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, (paraphrased) “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap. In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” – Rudolf Carnap
According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” – Albert Einstein Carnap and Einstein quotes are taken from the last few minutes of this video: Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics. For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was dome with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
bornagain77
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
At 11, after pointing out the fact that "Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is certainly not now, nor has it historically been, the ‘official’ position of the church, but YEC is a recent 20th century movement within protestant circles of Christianity", ChuckYD states, "With due respect, BA, I’ve seen this exegesis multiple times before and it is not persuasive…." Well since ChuckyD clings to a Darwinian worldview that entails that he has no free will, and that he is, therefore, merely a meat robot, one is forced to wonder how a meat robot could possibly find anything persuasive and change his mind about it. According to ChuckyD's Darwinian worldview, ChuckyD simply is not in control of his thoughts.
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
But anyways, that 'little' problem of ChuckyD not being in control of what he thinks or says aside, ChuckyD wants to hold Christians to a YEC interpretation of the Bible since he thinks Christians have some sort of 'scientific' problem with "deep time". But it is actually ChuckyD that has a problem with 'deep time', not the Christian Theist. In fact, I could give ChuckyD the lifetimes of many universes and he still could not account for the origin of even a single functional protein molecule.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA
Moreover, that 'little' problem with 'deep-time' aside, ChuckyD has another 'little' problem in that information itself is immaterial in its foundational essence and is therefore beyond his materialistic explanations that rely on the pre-existence of matter, energy, time, and space. As Caspian pointed out in the OP, "in Wheeler’s conception, information precedes and transcends matter, energy, time, and space." and also "in every case where we are able to trace information back to a source, we arrive at an intelligent agent—a poet or computer programmer or composer or architect". And indeed, as I pointed in post 7 via quantum teleportation, information is constitutive of what a particle is and is what actualizes a particle and brings it into being in the first place. So ChuckyD has the rather nasty problem of beyond space and time immaterial quantum information being the fundamental "stuff' that compose the material particles that he is reliant on to try to explain the origin of the immaterial information we find in biology. To put it mildly, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, things are not going well for ChuckyD supposedly 'scientific' worldview of Darwinian materialism. Things get much worse for ChuckyD when we go from physics and get to biology. It is now also found that this 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum information, and/or quantum entanglement, (besides being constitutive of what a particle is), is also found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology,
"What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state." Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176 Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552 Physicists Finally Observe a Link Between Quantum Criticality And Entanglement - Jan. 2020 Excerpt: "When we think about quantum entanglement, we think about small things," says physicist Qimiao Si, from Rice University. "We don't associate it with macroscopic objects." "But at a quantum critical point, things are so collective that we have this chance to see the effects of entanglement,",,, "If you don't see anything that's collective, that's scaling, the critical point has to belong to some textbook type of description. But, if you see something singular, which in fact we did, then it is very direct and new evidence for the quantum entanglement nature of quantum criticality." What all of this high-level physics means is a lot of potential: potential quantum advancements in computing, communications and more. Scientists have hypothesised about a link between quantum entanglement and quantum criticality before, but now it's been observed.,,, https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-see-billions-and-billions-of-entangled-electrons-flowing-through-strange-metal
The existence of quantum information, and/or quantum entanglement in 'every important biomolecule' is NOT a minor problem for the materialistic explanations of ChuckyD's Darwinian worldview. Namely, because of quantum non-locality, "no story in space and time can describe" the quantum correlations we find in molecular biology.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 28 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
ChuckyD's appeal to 'deep time' is simply a non-starter in so far as explaining these quantum correlations that are ubiquitous within molecular biology. I could give ChuckyD all the 'deep time he wanted, a billion years, a trillion years, a quadrillion years, it simply doesn't matter since "no story in space and time can describe them”.bornagain77
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
the religious commentary on this blog, at least from where I sit, seems to have increased substantially since Caspian became moderator.
Are you pointing to 4-5 individuals? This site has about 10 people responsible for 90% of the comments/95% of the words written. Of this small number a few are extremely prolific. Are you basing your objections to an entire discipline on a few people? And aren’t you equally guilty as these commenters are? After all a large percentage of your comments involve religion.jerry
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Querius/14 I did notice on my first pass through your post at 6 that you were claiming to invoke some type of quasi-NOMA position, but you don't quite succeed, so I didn't comment on it. Since you've brought it up, it's evident that you will pay lip service to the purported independent domains of science and religion, then immediately violate your own circumscription when it suits your agenda:
While this verse in the Gospel of John is very sweet to me, indicating the source of our existence (and compatible with the current understanding of quantum mechanics), I will take my own medicine and not make any scientific claims based on this passage in the Bible.
The parenthetical material demonstrates my point. It also pops up in comment 20. It's not just a wink and a nod, you explicitly fess up to being aware that you are doing it. You are not the only ID supporter that does this, by any means. The practice is rife within the ID community and appears to only be getting worse. In fact, the religious commentary on this blog, at least from where I sit, seems to have increased substantially since Caspian became moderator. In the grand scheme of things, I don't care if you guys do or don't continue to stress your biblical motifs vis a vis science. I just want to make sure that, like Bishop Ussher, you own it.....chuckdarwin
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
This discussion reminds me of this version of the Kalam. The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God 1. Do you believe that the universe, including time, space, and mass-energy, had a beginning, or do you believe that it always existed? Most scientists believe the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would have had to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and the universe would now have the maximum amount of entropy (disorder) possible, which it doesn't. 2. Do you believe that the beginning of the universe had a cause, or was it uncaused? Scientists believe that everything that exists or that occurs has a cause, and that without causality, nothing in science can be known (a). To put it another way, a major component of science is the rigorous, methodical study of causes and effects. 3. Do you believe that the cause of the universe was natural in accordance to the laws of physics, or was its cause something outside of nature? It’s difficult to argue that the cause of the universe was due to a natural agent within the universe, before the universe even came into existence. The non-existent universe would have had to cause itself (b). 4. Do you believe that the agent of the cause of the universe, itself had a cause, or was it uncaused? If the agent that caused the universe had a cause, what was its cause, and what was the cause of that cause, and so on. Thus, to avoid an infinite regression, there must originally have been an uncaused agent. The agent that ultimately caused time, and space, and mass-energy to come into existence cannot be within or bound to time, or space, or mass-energy. 5. What agent can bring the entire universe into existence, exists outside of nature, is not bound to the laws of physics, is timeless, and that has no cause for its own existence? This agent sounds a lot like what people think of as God. It should be clear that we can only learn anything about God indirectly by observing the design in nature, speculatively by applying reason, or directly through the self-revelation of God (c). NOTES (a) Some people think of radioactive decay events as not having a cause, but they do. The cause is an unstable nucleus. However, a decay event is a statistical probability; it is not a predictable event. Non-predictable events are frequently observed in nature. Also, physicists believe that nothing can be observed earlier than roughly 10^-43 seconds (Planck time) after the start of the universe. However, causality in some form must have transcended this period, or the universe would never have started to inflate (the “big bang”). (b) A mistake that many people make is that “empty” space is not the same as Nothing. The fabric of space itself is thought to have started expanding with the big bang, and is permeated with quantum foam as a result of the virtual matter that spontaneously forms and annihilates itself. The Casimir Effect is measurable evidence of the existence of virtual matter. Space also includes dark energy, dark matter, plasma, gravitational distortion, relativistic effects, and likely other things that we do not know about. Thus, the fabric of space is something that exists, and is not empty. In contrast, if there is Nothing, even time does not exist. There are no billions of years, no events, and there is no probability for anything to ever happen. (c) Is it reasonable and likely that God would interact with the universe? When do you think God would have begun to interact with the human race? How would you expect God to interact with you, and for what purpose? Most religions are based on claims of events, revelations, or enlightenment, resulting in beliefs, observances, texts, teachers, and traditions. They can’t all be true. If one of them was true, what things would you expect might be different from all the others? -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Relatd @16, I'd add that a great question is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Another good question is "Did the non-existent universe create itself?" And a third question is "How can probabilities exist outside of time?" -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Fasteddious at 15, Seversky is hoping to avoid thinking about human creativity in a way that supports its origin. Where did man get the knowledge to melt metals? To fashion jewelry? To build pyramids? To build gasoline engines? Random atoms bouncing around in people's heads?relatd
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 @10, The concept of a "24-hour day" interpretation of the days of Genesis is problematic. We currently measure a "day" (by one of several scientific definitions) by the light-dark cycle of the earth's revolutions with respect to the sun into 24 segments. However, the Genesis narrative asserts that the sun and moon were created in the THIRD day. In the past, many people mocked Genesis for this reason. However, SCIENCE now tells us that light appeared before the formation of stars, currently thought to be about 400 million years AFTER the big bang. 400 million years after the creation. BUT . . . Is it possible that science someday conclude that stars appeared before light? Yes, it's entirely possible! And then some years or centuries later, is it possible that new discoveries will reverse the order again? Yes, of course it's possible. Science cannot take any shortcuts, but must carefully use evidence create hypotheses that can be tested against the existing evidence, make predictions, and withstand new discoveries. A strong hypothesis can eventually rise to the level of a theory or a model. It's never considered a fact. Except for the theory of evolution, of course. It's taught as a fact without respect for continued discoveries of falsifying evidence. It's enshrined on ideological prejudice alone. A special thanks goes to AnimatedDust @9 for the link to John Lennox's brilliant lecture, "Seven Days That Divide the World," which I'm watching now (it starts at 9:43). -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 10, The writings of various people, saints or not, do not appear to resolve this issue. Further, many have argued with the Church over the centuries over points like this so, for some, it is not a trivial matter. And some cling to the apparent vagueness to say the days in question could not have been 24 hour days. In the Catholic Church, and in the United States, Sunday was regarded a a day of rest. Most businesses were closed. People went to church. That was normal and average throughout the 1950s and 1960s. But back to the subject. It cannot be ignored that God acted in His Creation. The Bible records things God actually did. So, if a day was longer than 24 hours during Creation then that is one possibility. However, the Church has no official teaching about this. Regarding evolution, various publications paint the Church as "evolution friendly." That is not factual. When Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 about evolution, he referred to theories of evolution, plural. It was further stated in the document Communion and Stewardship that any of the various versions of the theories of evolution that deny to God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe are incompatible with the faith.relatd
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Regarding Sev's initial silly comment: if I make a design for a new gadget, the plans (information) are "about" something that does not yet exist, but that I hope will exist in the future. Thus, not all information is about things that already exist.Fasteddious
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @8,
Ironic insofar as you will rely upon this “perspective” to make the always problematic, plain language of Genesis “harmonize” with the reality of its complete inconsistency w/ deep time OoL and evolutionary biology.
Apparently, you scanned rather that read my comment. No, I RESIST trying to harmonize the Bible with current scientific theories precisely because science is always changing. Please scan the above sentence again, focusing on the word RESIST. I do recognize general compatibility and some interesting coincidences. In fact, the Bible contains an essentially complete description of the scientific method written about 2,800 years ago. In ANE and many other ancient traditions, the sun and moon are gods/goddesses. In Genesis, they are described as "lamps." Imagine that.
But the same courtesy is never extended to the ongoing development of evolutionary biology.
This is only true if "evolutionary biology" is a religion rather than a science. Apparently this is true in your case, but for people who study science dispassionately, when a theory is falsified by new discoveries, when a theory repeated fails to make correct predictions, and when a theory needs to constantly be propped up with MUSTA and MIGHTA statements, it's time to consider new alternatives, which is exactly what the Royal Society called for a revision in 2016 in light of devastating genomic evidence, not to mention that Darwinism served as an apologetic for racism and colonialism. https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/
What is even more ironic is that you try to push it off to a “more appropriate” forum which is the intellectual equivalent of sweeping it under the rug.
Again, I recognize a distinction between the scientific process and religious belief, while you appear to have merged them.
Without a literal Adam and Eve, original sin vanishes. If original sin vanishes, so goes Christianity, which, by all objective measures, is already on life-support……..
Funny that you should say that because this means that you broadly deny 1. https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html Note: the authors immediately distance the subject from the Biblical narrative of the first Adam and Eve, but not on scientific grounds. In other words, if the Biblical narrative is historically true, then the observed genomic results would also indicate a common ancestral pair of all humanity. 2. The existence of any evil in humanity. Good luck with that. -QQuerius
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Seversky, I checked your stats. You have posted 5, 286 comments. Since you use the site so much, you really should make a donation this year!!Barry Arrington
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
CD, therein lies the problem. Nothing in you at the moment is willing to consider the possibility that you, not us nutty Christians, are the one who is wrong. Ultimately, what is true will be true, regardless of your resistance. And your choice will be actualized for eternity. Seems to me, an error of that magnitude would produce in any reasonable person, now staring The Truth in the face, as he simply grants your lifelong wish, the wailing and gnashing of teeth.AnimatedDust
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
BA77 With due respect, BA, I’ve seen this exegesis multiple times before and it is not persuasive….chuckdarwin
December 16, 2022
December
12
Dec
16
16
2022
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply