It is time for ID to provide real leadership in rethinking origins across the board

Nonlin.org @ 53

Everybody does – that’s the point: whatever you hold without proof (Facts Selection, Assumptions, Interpretation and Extrapolation of the Observable) is your Religion.

You are free to define "religion" any way you want but I don't think that's what most people understand by the word. It's certainly not what I understand by it. By your definition, me being a fan of Star Trek and Star Wars is a religion but that's not how I see it - although I confess to being attracted by Vulcan stoicism and Jedi mysticism (pantheism?).

It did not – you confuse atheistic religion with science and they’re not the same.

Ideally, science should be neither religious nor atheistic. It should approach the universe it studies without prejudice. In reality, as a messy human enterprise it often falls short of that ideal but that doesn't mean it shouldn't try to live up to it. And, as has been said many times before, atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Once you drill down matter to the subatomic level, you get to the immaterial. Also, since “matter = physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit”, are you claiming you’re a mindless automaton yourself? And if we’re all that, what’s the point of you trying to “convince” someone of your righteousness?

Yes, quantum theory has shown that matter at the sub-atomic scale is very different from what we once imagined it to be. That doesn't change the fact that if, following Dr Samuel Johnson, you kick a heavy stone, you will still hurt your toe. Seversky

kairosfocus @ 51

Seversky, we only observe material entities through consciousness, which exhibits a rationality and en-conscienced moral government that cannot coherently be accounted for on materialism. KF

Not yet, it can't. That doesn't mean it never will. And need I remind you that our consciousness, rationality and voluntary acknowledgement of moral governance all disappear when the material brain dies or is destroyed and are never observed apart from that physical substrate? Seversky

Seversky@50

What if they don’t have any religious views?

Everybody does - that's the point: whatever you hold without proof (Facts Selection, Assumptions, Interpretation and Extrapolation of the Observable) is your Religion.

Science and religion perhaps began to diverge in the Enlightenment.

It did not - you confuse atheistic religion with science and they're not the same.

Actually, all we can observe is matter and energy so materialism is a reasonable assumption.

Once you drill down matter to the subatomic level, you get to the immaterial. Also, since "matter = physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit", are you claiming you're a mindless automaton yourself? And if we're all that, what's the point of you trying to "convince" someone of your righteousness? Nonlin.org

Seversky:

Actually, all we can observe is matter and energy so materialism is a reasonable assumption.

And yet information is neither matter nor energy:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.” Norbert Weiner

ET

Seversky, we only observe material entities through consciousness, which exhibits a rationality and en-conscienced moral government that cannot coherently be accounted for on materialism. KF kairosfocus

Nonlin.org @ 49

Facts Selection, Assumptions, Interpretation and Extrapolation of the Observable are all Belief components (Religion) essential to conclusions in all scientific endeavors and no scientist will ever propose a hypotheses contravening his/her religious views.

What if they don't have any religious views?

But since when was Science separate from Religion and Philosophy? Historically, all scientists were philosophers/religious and, to this day, scientists still earn a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) title.

Science and religion perhaps began to diverge in the Enlightenment. It wouldn't be very obvious in the early days as expressing atheist views could end your career - and your life - in those days.

Of course materialism is a religion...

How do you define "religion"?

Would we be still debating materialism if it were confirmed by observation? Of course not. Can one even observe materialism?

Actually, all we can observe is matter and energy so materialism is a reasonable assumption. Seversky

kairosfocus and materialists, Arguments around Science are useless because Science = Observable + Religion http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/ . Facts Selection, Assumptions, Interpretation and Extrapolation of the Observable are all Belief components (Religion) essential to conclusions in all scientific endeavors and no scientist will ever propose a hypotheses contravening his/her religious views. But since when was Science separate from Religion and Philosophy? Historically, all scientists were philosophers/religious and, to this day, scientists still earn a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) title. Of course materialism is a religion - all one has to do is to observe the fervor of its defendants in spite of utter lack of supporting evidence. Would we be still debating materialism if it were confirmed by observation? Of course not. Can one even observe materialism? Of course not - if anything we see there's no creativity in materialism and no path from random, purposeless, unguided matter to the apparent nonrandom and purposeful actions of its proponents. Nonlin.org

Science and dogma, of any stripe, are utterly incompatible and that dogma throughout history, and within all cultural paradigms, has sought to undermine scientific discoveries that contradict their traditions, teachings, and rob their purists of prestige. Much better. :cool: ET

rvb8@45

I believe strongly that science and religion are utterly incompatible, and that religion throughout history, and within all cultural paradigms, has sought to undermine scientific discoveries that contradict their holy books, and teachings, and rob their priests of prestige.

You strongly believe it but does that make it true? Your faith is impressive. Latemarch

rvb8:

I believe strongly that science and religion are utterly incompatible, And yet Newton, the father of modern science, was religious and it influenced his science.

ET

daveS, and kairos, I believe strongly that science and religion are utterly incompatible, and that religion throughout history, and within all cultural paradigms, has sought to undermine scientific discoveries that contradict their holy books, and teachings, and rob their priests of prestige. This position is amply supported by simple recourse to modern European history, and visiting sites such as this one today. rvb8

DS, the rhetoric I have pointed out is all too commonplace and urgently needs to be corrected. KF kairosfocus

KF,

But does that imply that we live in a chaos not a cosmos? Not at all.

Agreed. I certainly was not asserting otherwise.

So, the rhetoric that tries to cast theism as in inherent enemy of scientific thought and progress is either historically incredibly ignorant or outright deceitful.

Thankfully, no one here is engaging in such rhetoric. At least I'm not. daveS

DS, yes there is abundant evidence that there are relatively rare -- compared to the torrent of the mundane -- miracles, signs. Some good, some patently evil. Yes, I have witnesses some of both. I am here because of a miracle of guidance in answer to prayer. And there are sufficient, sufficiently diverse witnesses that cumulatively the weight renders odds of ALL being delusional massively unlikely. As the 9th Bridgewater Treatise by Babbage showed what coming on 200 years ago now, and that by a voice with a modicum of weight. But does that imply that we live in a chaos not a cosmos? Not at all. As for instance C S Lewis (again, not exactly an unknown, unheard of voice) highlighted: the point of a sign is that it must stand out from a backdrop. For miracles to have significance, there must be a stable, lawlike general order but one as Newton highlighted and as in a somewhat different way in our day Taleb did: an order open to the black swan. An order that has room for "exceptions" due to a higher order, lawlike progression intersected by intelligently directed contrivance, as we see at a lesser level in our own deciding and acting. So, no, ethical theism is not antithetical to science, indeed its adherents had a lot to do with founding modern science. And one of their mottos was, thinking God's creative and providential/sustaining thoughts after Him who upholds all things in an orderly fashion by his word of power. So, the rhetoric that tries to cast theism as an inherent enemy of scientific thought and progress is either historically incredibly ignorant or outright deceitful. KF kairosfocus

We need a like button! re 40. jdk

KF,

DS, look above, you applied that to science by way of an argument. There are no neat firewalls in things at the level of knowledge of external reality by senses, reflection and instruments that extend such. the self-referential incoherence follows in short order, indeed the takedown of rationality. KF

No. In your worldview, there exist entities such as angels and demons, who can perform various feats including levitation. You have witnessed such events yourself. Would you want a demon to levitate your car and then abruptly drop it to the ground while you are collecting data with your backyard gravitational wave detector? I think not. Therefore you must believe that such events occur rarely, allowing you to collect data without disturbance. If we lived in a different type of universe, with gods constantly hurling lighting bolts at each other, causing earthquakes, &c., perhaps it be practically impossible to detect gravitational waves. But you believe, as I do, that these 'supernatural' entities either don't exist or keep a very low profile. daveS

Just a descendent. ;) ET

ET, are you one? (Just kidding.) KF PS: You are right to highlight Seversky's assertion. He needs to realise what has become forfeit by dint of the piece of definitional gerrymandering that has been foisted on us. We now have to ascertain not only what is knowledge but what is science both objectively and in the view of those we have to talk with; as we have been exploring for a while. For, the question begging ideological imposition highlighted would make science into little more than atheism in a lab coat with little or no accountability to truth about or world anchored on observations and linked analysis. Which, patently, cannot be what science is. PPS: Let me expand the above:

let us give a "rough working definition" of science as it should be (recognising that we will often fall short): science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, observational evidence-led pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on: a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical -- real-world, on the ground -- observations and measurements, b: inference to best current -- thus, always provisional -- abductive explanation of the observed facts, c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein's favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments], d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and, e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, "the informed" is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.) As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.

--> Let's see if the usual interlocutors will be willing to suggest what they think given the concerns on the table. kairosfocus

DS, look above, you applied that to science by way of an argument. There are no neat firewalls in things at the level of knowledge of external reality by senses, reflection and instruments that extend such. the self-referential incoherence follows in short order, indeed the takedown of rationality. KF kairosfocus

Seversky:

I have to say, though, a lot of this reads like complaining because science isn’t coming up with observations and theories that you like or, more specifically, that are consonant with your religious presuppositions.

Your "science" has only produced untestable diatribe that only fit in with the religion of materialism. It's as if "science" isn't science ET

No, it’s fine tuned for all of the organisms and I doubt very much that we are alone in the universe. Also it isn’t that it is fine tuned for us. It’s that it’s fine tuned to allow for our existence. To elaborate- All of the living organisms require the fine tuning of the universe. Without it they too would be impossible to produce. In some cases atoms would be impossible and in other atoms heavier than hydrogen would be impossible. I doubt we are alone in the universe means there are real ETs out there, somewhere. And it means that all of the (not faked) alleged evidence for them is also real. And finally the fine tuning allows for our existence as it is not sufficient to produce us ET

KF,

DS, that we are all in a chain of delusions caused by some Cartesian demon...

That's not what I'm claiming. daveS

DS, that we are all in a chain of delusions caused by some Cartesian demon is hugely controversial and is an example of grand delusion that leads to patent absurdity thus self referential incoherence. What is pretty well established and which you seem unwilling to discuss is the known imposition of a tendentious redefinition of science implicating scientific and educational elites and even the philosophers who were called in on the project for NSTA. KF PS: If you doubt me, here is Phil Johnson's reply to Lewontin et al:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."

Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

kairosfocus

KF,

DS, pardon a chuckle. The force of your claim directly leads to the question as to whether this thread exchange, too is nothing but an infinitely regressive chain of grand delusions.

Just so we're clear, would you please reflect back to me what you believe I'm claiming? IMO, it's not really even controversial. daveS

RodW, see why it is sometimes important to stand back and look at the foundations-up big picture? And, why there is reason to speak of a good-cop, bad-cop intellectually and morally bankrupt rhetorical/ agit-prop game? (Do you understand what it means when you hold the education of children hostage to impose an intellectually bankrupt, ideologically loaded, morally corrupt redefinition of science? [And, JDK et al, just come on in and challenge it if you feel up to revisiting the whole sorry matter.]) KF kairosfocus

ET, good points, care to elaborate? KF kairosfocus

Nonlin, kindly, cf. the just above. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, Strawman soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issues:

a lot of this reads like complaining because science isn’t coming up with observations and theories that you like or, more specifically, that are consonant with your religious presuppositions.

What part of:

Science seeks to accurately observe, describe, explain, predict and enable us to act effectively in our world. So truth-seeking is critical to science. Therefore we have to respect findings of related disciplines that support that work. Therefore, we must anchor on empirical observations and recognise that theories are inferences to the best current explanation and are inherently provisional. They remain [live] theories so long as it is credible that they may be substantially true and no further. They are inherently provisional; subject to empirical testing and the requirement of well-tested empirical reliability. This holds for experimental sciences. It holds doubly for observational sciences and doubly again for scientific investigations of origins, where that deep past cannot itself be observed; we see traces and try to reconstruct and date past circumstances back to origins. All of this successively degrades strength of epistemic stance of relevant theories. All of this, the a priori materialist activists and their enablers will not acknowledge and have repeatedly tried to turn into accusations of stealth Creationism, “religion” inserting itself into the temple of science and the like.

-- is so hard to understand? Or, do I need to point to the exchanges in Kansas c 2001 - 2007:

2001 radical re-Definition imposed by evolutionary materialism activists: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.” 2005 correction to that tendentious re-Definition: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” 2007 re-imposition after a dirty agit-prop operation and threats from NSTA and NAS to hold the children of the state hostage: "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

Of course, "natural explanations" is patently a code for naturalistic explanations. Imposing an ideological a priori as Lewontin indicated, is grand question-begging, indoctrination and disregard for duty to seek, present and stand by truth. The accurate description of reality. Further, this was backed up by outright abuse of influence to hold families, children and their education hostage. Here is an excerpt from the NAS-NSTA letter that makes a very ugly downright threat that the complicit, enabling media did not expose:

. . . the members of the Kansas State Board of Education who produced Draft 2-d of the KSES have deleted text defining science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, blurring the line between scientific and other ways of understanding. Emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution -- when in fact all modern theories of science are continually tested and verified -- and distorting the definition of science are inconsistent with our Standards and a disservice to the students of Kansas. Regretfully, many of the statements made in the KSES related to the nature of science and evolution also violate the document’s mission and vision. Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.

Utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy expressed in outright nihilistic, will to power might and manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'knowledge,' 'history,' 'education' and more. This was and remains utterly indefensible. Just by contrast, let me clip some high quality college-level dictionaries from the period before this radical redefinition was imposed by domineering and disregard for truth:

science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]

The first battle for leadership in science is to restore sanity to the basic understanding of what science is and does. Something is DEMONSTRABLY rotten in the state of science and science education and it must first be faced if we are to get anywhere sensible. Going further, with an historically-, epistemologically- and inductive logic limitations- sound understanding of science in hand, we can then look at experimental vs observational vs origins sciences, facts of observation vs theoretical explanations, degrees of warrant and responsible balance on claims such as "science is the only begetter of truth." Next, we can then squarely face the nigh on 70 year old finding that there is ALPHABETIC, CODED TEXT in the heart of the cell. Associated with, transcribing, editing, translation machinery and regulatory networks. Sophisticated digital information and communication systems at molecular scale and obviously tracing to origin of the living cell. Where the first cells credibly had 100 - 1,000 kbits of information in such codes, just to code the proteins and RNA they used. It is not too difficult to show that 100 kbits implies a configuration space of ~ 9.99 *10^30,102 possibilities, per n bits implies 2^n possibilities. The search challenge for such with an observed cosmos of ~ 10^80 atoms with ~ 10^-14 chemical level interactions per second [fast for organic chem] on a time span ~ 10^17 s since the singularity is hopelessly too small a scope of generously possible search to space. It is not credible that any blind chance and mechanical necessity process arrived at such functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] on the gamut of available search resources. The only empirically well warranted causal explanation for such FSCO/I -- and yes I am applying Newton's vera causa principle -- is intelligently directed configuration. On trillions of known cases. Design sits at the table for explaining the FSCO/I in life as of right, from OOL up. The imposed a priori evolutionary materialism lockout is bankrupt and dead. Next, scroll up and glance at Barnes' chart on just two of the many finely tuned factors: strong nuke force and fine structure constant. Holding nuclei together but with room for nucleosynthesis and electromagnetic [thus also weak] interactions. Notice the window of possibilities? And where our observed cosmos is? Now, on the contingent option, fine tuning is blatant. On the oh there is a covering superlaw option, we have simply exported the fine tuning up one level, as in where did such a locking law come from. Where, you can see the multiverse appeal dilemma: keep your lab coat and recognise that appeal to multiverse is weak as scientific speculation [when we lack observation and perhaps observability . . . ] or go to multiverse and recognise you left the lab coat on the peg by the door and have to deal with worldview level comparative difficulties. On either prong, we face John Leslie's challenge:

“One striking thing about the fine tuning is that a force strength or a particle mass often appears to require accurate tuning for several reasons at once. Look at electromagnetism. Electromagnetism seems to require tuning for there to be any clear-cut distinction between matter and radiation; for stars to burn neither too fast nor too slowly for life’s requirements; for protons to be stable; for complex chemistry to be possible; for chemical changes not to be extremely sluggish; and for carbon synthesis inside stars (carbon being quite probably crucial to life). Universes all obeying the same fundamental laws could still differ in the strengths of their physical forces, as was explained earlier, and random variations in electromagnetism from universe to universe might then ensure that it took on any particular strength sooner or later. Yet how could they possibly account for the fact that the same one strength satisfied many potentially conflicting requirements, each of them a requirement for impressively accurate tuning?” [Our Place in the Cosmos, The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 1998 (courtesy Wayback Machine).] AND: “. . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.”

Cosmological fine tuning is here to stay, and it puts design squarely on the table as candidate to beat. For origin of our observed cosmos. The only actually scientifically observed one. Now, lead, follow or kindly stand aside. KF kairosfocus

FF, institutional and cultural dominance. That's why the history and even the basic definitions of science and its methods have been ideologically re-written. And that's the first step to taking back science for the cause of its proper end: seeking to objectively explore, explain, and understand our world with sufficient empirical reliability and credibility that we can confidently use our findings. KF kairosfocus

DS, pardon a chuckle. The force of your claim directly leads to the question as to whether this thread exchange, too is nothing but an infinitely regressive chain of grand delusions. Are you absolutely sure you are not a loaded smoke bewitched prisoner in Plato's cave or a resident of the Matrix or, or, or . . . ? There is never a good reason to hold to grand delusion, and if you are suggesting that that is what evolutionary materialism is reduced to, that speaks telling volumes. Are you sure you are not UD founder WmAD in drag? KF PS: As touching the Lewontin-Sagan twist on Descartes as an obvious worldviews comparative difficulties question, ethical theism -- which we can summarised as a view on the necessary being world root adequate to ground the self-evident fact of consciousness of moral government (including in reasoning) -- is not trapped in such hyperskepticism. We are undeniably contingent and conscious, morally governed creatures. In that light, the necessary being world root must be adequate. This points to the inherently good and wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good according to our evident nature. In that context, a good and wise maximally great creator would not fundamentally and materially mislead us. This BTW was part of the confidence that led to the establishing of science and to confidence in observation, reasoning and mathematical analysis: thinking God's creative and provident, world-sustaining thoughts after him. PPS: By contrast, evolutionary materialistic scientism has severe difficulties grounding rationality, moral government, knowledge, warrant, science and more. Fundamentally, matter and energy in space-time has no credible base for the spontaneous emergence of an accurate or reasonably accurate information-rich, highly organised computational substrate due to the FSCO/I origination challenge given search challenge. Then, further, it has no credible account of a reliable, responsible, rationally capable conscious en-conscienced mind. Indeed, routinely its advocates have sought to use institutional and cultural dominance to impose challenges to the rationality of those who object to their scheme, without facing the self-referentially incoherence and thus self-refutation of the scheme. Evolutionary materialistic scientism is necessarily false. kairosfocus

Why is it that Darwinists and atheists act as if science belongs to them and only to them by some unspoken right? FourFaces

What do you mean "leadership"? Since not observable, the origins are scientifically unknowable. Like it or not, the only possible perspective is through Religion, and that's why Darwinism/materialism are themselves religions. This is the fact that needs to be clarified to materialists. The other thing is that Darwinism is demonstrably fake science: http://nonlin.org/evolution/ 1. “Natura non facit saltum” (gradualism) is illogical and contrary to everything we know about the absolute discreteness of organisms. 2. “Randomness” is unknowable and never a source of creativity 3. “Natural Selection” – everything is natural and all selection is done exclusively by living organisms (Intelligent Selectors) 4. “Blind, mindless, unguided and purposeless” qualifiers are utterly unsupported by evidence 5. Selection and Survival are one and the same – the selected survive and the surviving have been selected 6. “Fit” as in “survival of the fittest” cannot be measured except as “survival” (circular logic) 7. “Four or five”…or LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is illogical as, in a generic “primordial soup” scenario, if one happens then many happen but “spontaneous generation” has failed up to now 8. There are no examples whatsoever of “Arising” as in “Arising of Everything” and “Life vs. Entropy” 9. “Benefit” and “optimization” are anthropic concepts incompatible with the mechanistic universe envisioned by Darwin and his followers 10. One must presume evolution to see evolutionary links in the fossil record – this “proof” is circular logic. Conversely, organisms’ resemblance is typical for common designed entities. 11. "Species/speciation" is a failed concept. Keep it simple! Nonlin.org

Seversky:

For example, if we take what astronomy and cosmology have revealed about this Universe, such as its unimaginable size and almost unfathomable time, to argue that it has all been fine-tuned for one animal species out of millions occupying a tiny speck of a planet orbiting an unremarkable star out of billions in one galaxy out of billions looks faintly absurd.

No, it's fine tuned for all of the organisms and I doubt very much that we are alone in the universe. Also it isn't that it is fine tuned for us. It's that it's fine tuned to allow for our existence. ET

KF @17 I'm not sure what you really mean by this comment but if I were you, I'd make absolutely certain that the manipulation and corruption wouldn't affect me even in the slightest way... J-Mac

It is time for ID to provide real leadership in rethinking origins across the board

By all means, go right ahead. Nobody's stopping you. I have to say, though, a lot of this reads like complaining because science isn't coming up with observations and theories that you like or, more specifically, that are consonant with your religious presuppositions. For example, if we take what astronomy and cosmology have revealed about this Universe, such as its unimaginable size and almost unfathomable time, to argue that it has all been fine-tuned for one animal species out of millions occupying a tiny speck of a planet orbiting an unremarkable star out of billions in one galaxy out of billions looks faintly absurd. Good luck reconciling that with Man as the pinnacle of God's creation. Seversky

OldAndrew,

I don’t believe in demons interfering with our experiments. That’s X-Files stuff, like UFOs and chemicals that spontaneously begin creating complex machines and codes to reproduce and increase their own complexity.

I don't believe in it either, because I don't believe demons exist (although I can't be sure). However, some do believe they exist, and even claim to have witnessed demonic activity. Fortunately it seems to occur infrequently to never, so it's not a serious concern for scientists. daveS

KF,

DS, do you not see that such a view undermines rationality itself, becoming self-referentially incoherent?

No, I don't see that it's incoherent. daveS

J-Mac, do you realise that the problem starts with willfully corrupting our understanding of what science is and achieves? Do you realise where else that sort of manipulation can lead? KF kairosfocus

DS, do you not see that such a view undermines rationality itself, becoming self-referentially incoherent? Is this the best you can do in the teeth of the challenge of alphabetic text in the heart of life and that of the challenge of the evident fine tuning of our observed cosmos? That is in itself inadvertently revealing. KF kairosfocus

daveS

Would you agree that we have to assume that we actually are able to obtain information about the real world by conducting experiments?

Yes, we obtain information about the real world by conducting experiments. But this may or may not help us draw conclusions when it comes to past events. In some cases it does. For example, one might experiment and determine that starting a fire with one substance leaves one sort of pattern, while using another substance leaves a different pattern. We can't go back and watch the fire start in a building, but through experimentation we can determine what is or is not consistent with a given output. When it comes to the origin of life the origin of anything new in any living thing, no experimentation has really shed light in favor of spontaneous organization, Darwinian evolution, or intelligent design. We can experiment all day long to understand how things function and reproduce, but it hasn't revealed why there is life instead of no life or birds instead of never any birds. What we have accomplished through experimentation tells us that some factors tend to break down complex molecules which is inconsistent with speculation that they may have formed unassisted and begun looking for ways to encode and transcode themselves before the next drop of water hit the puddle and destroyed them. I don't believe in demons interfering with our experiments. That's X-Files stuff, like UFOs and chemicals that spontaneously begin creating complex machines and codes to reproduce and increase their own complexity. Is that why OOL experiments reveal nothing but implausibility, because demons are interfering with them? OldAndrew

KF,

And so to infinite regress of general hyperskepticism and self-referential undermining of rationality.

Well, you've parsed it out in self-referential manner, but you haven't shown that it is unlikely. Clearly it would have undesirable consequences, and in fact you and I both believe we are not being continually tricked by demons. But you do believe that demons capable of deceiving us exist, right? And that hopefully they will leave us alone at critical junctures. Suppose you are performing a cold fusion experiment using a benchtop apparatus such as this one. You must believe that no demon will 'stick his foot in your laboratory door' and disturb your experiment, thereby producing a string of spectacular positive results which will only lead to your embarrassment when the device fails to work in front of a large audience at the Royal Society. daveS

It is time for ID to provide real leadership in rethinking origins across the board How do you see ID doing it exactly? The vast majority don't want to hear anything about it... I once asked a relative of mine why he produces crappy movies... He told me that the great majority want to watch crappy movies... Could ID fall a victim of the same trends in our society today? J-Mac

DS, are we really going down this line? Okay, here's what I am saying: any Plato's cave like world is a level-one grand delusion. Instantly, our senses and reasoning are suspect, so is our suspicion of a Plato's cave like world of shadow shows a level two delusion? Oop, is this now the level three? And so to infinite regress of general hyperskepticism and self-referential undermining of rationality. No, any grand delusion game is absurd. Instead, we start with, we cannot be deluded on the bare fact of consciousness. Similarly, for other key self-evident truths as we have gone over for weeks and as we saw all sorts of noise, fuss and row over. We have good reason to know we access a world to moral certainty and that ordinary and extended facts of observation are credible. Where of course SET's help keep us on an even keel. All of this is utterly distinct from observing traces of the remote past. We are not in a position to directly inspect that past and must be extra cautious on the strength of our conclusions. Now, kindly explain to us, do we or do we not observe textual coded information in the living cell? Does or does that not come as a trace of origins of the cell? Next, do we or do we not have a body of cosmological observations that have led to cosmological theories with laws, parameters etc? Is or is it not possible to explore as an analysis a perturbation exercise on the values etc? what do they suggest? And more? KF kairosfocus

daveS:

I don’t know how you would determine experimentally whether some process is guided or not.

So what does that tell you about evolutionism? Revised question: Does anyone know what experiments to conduct to determine if any bacterial flagellum evolved starting from populations that never had one? I would think that if said starting populations were under some environmental pressure and the formation of the adaptation was a straight-away process*, that would be an indication the populations had it within them to produce such an adaptation. It was guided/ directed to happen. On the other hand I would expect unguided processes to be hit or miss with way more misses than hits. A hit being a "beneficial" mutation that may or may not have anything to do with flagella. *ORFans being formed and expressed; genes being duplicated and re-purposed ET

As I understand it, most Christians (not that it would be limited to them, but in the reference to demons they would be the first group to come to mind) would not argue that every or even most things observed in the natural world are a result of demonic or paranormal activity. If you think of the natural laws of the universe as basically being similar (just for sake of analogy) to how a computer program works(which is not totally unreasonable given the generally binary properties of subatomic particles), then if you were God, it does seem a more logical way of setting things up than having to rely billions and billions of angels to keep everything working every second. Quite frankly, even if you do believe in angels and/or demons, it does not do away with the fact that the natural laws of the universe are established by God to be basically consistent and reliable, and therefore testable (Jer 5:22, Job 38:1-14, Prov 8:22-30). Even so, from a biblical standpoint of angels/demons, although from time to time there may be manifestations that may not seem to agree with the laws of nature, at least as we understand them, they seem to be generally more interested in influencing human agents to do good/bad than in sadistically altering the natural laws of the universe "just for kicks." outside_observer

KF,

First, any scheme of thought that implies grand, general delusion or that invokes possibility of such delusion at pleasure is patently absurd. So, there is no need for “assumptions” to the contrary; that is self-evident.

Do you mean it's self-evident that supernatural entities, such as demons, generally do not interfere with our experiments? And that it's patently absurd to propose so? daveS

DS, First, any scheme of thought that implies grand, general delusion or that invokes possibility of such delusion at pleasure is patently absurd. So, there is no need for "assumptions" to the contrary; that is self-evident. Linked, that error exists is also self-evident so we must be aware that empirical investigations are inherently not in the realm of absolute undeniable truth. However we can often have objective warrant to the point of moral certainty. The car veering out of line and heading your way is not the subject of debates on veridicality of sense-experiences, you JUMP, pronto. (And, unfortunately, there was an incident here today, looks like heart attack at the wheel.) Such holds whether we contrive the circumstances (experimental studies) or we observe what happens by itself (observational studies). The advantage of the former is a better ability to test ranges of variables, leading to more intensive and thorough testing. As for detecting intelligently driven contrivance or configuration, we all know that such is routinely done. For instance archaeologists distinguish "archaeology" from "natural," quite matter of factly. Likewise, forensic science routinely detects signs of design in detecting crimes. Similarly, we have massively documented and highly reliable signs of cause by intelligently directed configuration on a trillion-member evidence base of directly observed cause. That base tells us that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is a sign of design as cause. The problem is not the tested reliability of such FSCO/I, but that it points to cases in the world of life. Where, in the heart of the living cell we have copious quantities of alphabetic, meaningful, coded information, i.e. TEXT. That text is being used in molecular scale execution machinery that carries out the work of the living cell. Indeed, so much is this so that in recent years we have had genetic engineering emerge as a field of practice. Even more recently, experimenters have added two more bases to the natural four. After nigh on seventy years, it is time we faced the messages in the cell and acknowledged their implications. KF kairosfocus

ET, I don't know how you would determine experimentally whether some process is guided or not. daveS

daveS:

Would you agree that we have to assume that we actually are able to obtain information about the real world by conducting experiments? And therefore we must assume that, at least some of the time, demons are not interfering with our lab equipment (not to mention our minds)?

Of course. Does anyone know what experiments to conduct to determine if evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum? And if no one knows what information have we obtained about evolutionism? ET

KF,

Can we therefore agree that:

Sounds reasonable. Would you agree that we have to assume that we actually are able to obtain information about the real world by conducting experiments? And therefore we must assume that, at least some of the time, demons are not interfering with our lab equipment (not to mention our minds)? daveS

DS & RodW: Pardon, but a stance that starts from setting the scientific house in order in the teeth of notoriously deeply entrenched ideological manipulation and imposition is -- regrettably -- fully justified. And no, frank statement of necessary truth after long exchanges is not argument by insult, that is out of order. We have an ideology blocking reasonable progress and that needs to be plainly stated. Then, corrected; and, frankly, apologised for. If you doubt me, let me bring to the table first Richard Lewontin, yes the same:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

Is that idiosyncratic, never mind he is speaking for an elite? No, here is the US Science Teacher's Board in July 2000, on much the same grounds, speaking to education but with direct implications for how science is to be carried forward in our time:

PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations [--> declaration of intent to censor instructional content], generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> ideological imposition of a loaded definition] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.

Them's fighting words, I am sorry. Teachers have a particular duty to truth, and so ideological imposition like this is an outright betrayal of the trust of the educator. It goes further, here now is the US national Academy of Science in the 2008 form of a pamphlet on teaching evolution:

In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena [--> accurate and reliable, confirmed observation, description and sound analysis]. Natural [--> reliably empirically observed] causes [--> add: meet Newton's vera causa, actually observed cause test and so] are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature,

[--> the false choice, natural vs supernatural, when the real and readily empirically testable choice since Plato in the Laws Bk X c 360 BC has been natural ( = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) vs the ART-ificial working by intelligently directed configuration, aka design. This is a case of irresponsible red herring distraction from the real issue to a convenient strawman creationism target set up to be soaked with the ad hominems of anti-scientific motivation and underlying between the lines insinuations of right wing theocratic "christofascist" impositions, etc]

scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it.

[--> observe a case of configuration-based specific functionality beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complex organisation emerging by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and the design inference principle would collapse. the strawman tactic is used in a context where it is easy to see that on a trillion observation base, such FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration, AKA design, as key causal factor]

Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10. Emphases added.]

I trust my strike and correct makes the matter plain enough. No, we are not dealing here with reasonable responsible discussion and that must first be corrected if we are to make ANY progress. Can we therefore agree that:

Science seeks to accurately observe, describe, explain, predict and enable us to act effectively in our world. So truth-seeking is critical to science. Therefore we have to respect findings of related disciplines that support that work. Therefore, we must anchor on empirical observations and recognise that theories are inferences to the best current explanation and are inherently provisional. They remain [live] theories so long as it is credible that they may be substantially true and no further. They are inherently provisional; subject to empirical testing and the requirement of well-tested empirical reliability. This holds for experimental sciences. It holds doubly for observational sciences and doubly again for scientific investigations of origins, where that deep past cannot itself be observed; we see traces and try to reconstruct and date past circumstances back to origins. All of this successively degrades strength of epistemic stance of relevant theories.

If we cannot, we are simply going to go through one more round of evasion tactics, selective hyperskepticism and frankly enabling for the sort of abusive behaviour we have routinely seen in the penumbra of animus sites and the cyber stalkers and with on the ground stalkers. Enough is enough. KF kairosfocus

Darwinism is a perversion of science. It's not about the use of the scientific method to reveal truth but to use a claim to its authority to establish an ethos allowing those who hold it to "do as thy will" whether in government, business or one's sex life. It's the establishment of a creation myth. It's a bad thing. tribune7

I say, toss over the whole rotten rhetorical game-board.

I'll say, and I've said this before here and in other places, that you need to have disciplined and methodically argued discussions about limited topics to move forward. You wont get anywhere with these drive-by-insult discussions. To their credit both GPuccio and Dionisio have initiated such discussions and tried to keep them going but they eventually fizzle out. Maybe its just the medium that doesn't permit it. One thing I've thought about is having a referee who would make sure ideas and questions (within reason) from each side were addressed before moving on. RodW

I read the title of the post and initially thought it was calling for ID proponents to take clear positions on issues such as common descent, young vs old Earth, where and when modern humans arose, &c. That would be a positive development, IMHO. But I was wrong: "That challenges us to rethink worldviews, ideologies and cultural agendas." sigh daveS

It is time for ID to provide real leadership in rethinking origins across the board kairosfocus