Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Karsten Pultz on the Scandinavians who are threatened by ID

Spread the love

Karsten Pultz, author of Exit Evolution, responds to an anti-ID prof at the University of Oslo:


In a recent article, “Evolutionary flaws disprove the theory of intelligent design” (Glenn-Peter Sætre, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Titan.uio.no, March 11, 2020) the main argument is that bad design in nature makes it impossible to believe in intelligent design. While evolution has produced marvels it has also produced a number of examples of bad construction (it always makes me smile when the neo-Darwinists use words like “construction”).

The logic behind the examples of bad design as evidence against ID, is that if a feature in nature has flaws, it cannot have been intelligently designed. The same logic, applied to the old Jaguar I once owned, would suggest that because it had mechanical design flaws, it could not have been intelligently designed and must necessarily be a product of random processes.

Because the human birth canal is narrow, because food, water and air follow the same route before they split into either the stomach or the lungs, and because we have wisdom teeth, life must be the product of random mutation and natural selection. A designer would never have made mistakes that would make it dangerous to eat and for women to give birth, therefore evolution is a fact.

I have previously commented on on a Danish site on the exact same bogus arguments raised by a Danish biologist, Jan Gruwier Larsen, in his book Uintelligent Design (Un-intelligent Design). My counterargument was and still is that any intelligently designed apparatus will necessarily contain engineeringcompromises. Within the material world it is not possible to make any contraption flawless, especially if the task is to make machinery that can perform multiple functions. Oddly enough, he made the point that women’s narrow birth canals are the compromise that enables women to also be good runners. His argument invalidates itself because an engineer would need to make the exact same compromises. There are constraints in the physical world, and the result will be engineering compromises no matter whether you adhere to natural selection acting on random mutation or intelligent design.

The point the neo-Darwinists are making when addressing the issue of so called bad design is this: We cannot ourselves produce living organisms, but if we could, we would have done a better job because we are intelligent designers.

Of course nothing can speak to the soft-hearted as well as this Norwegian article does, harping on the fact that women in the Third World die more often while giving birth. And of course that is not a valid argument against ID. First of all it’s not a question to raise in the field of biology, since it is a philosophical question whether the designer was incompetent, evil, or if something in the creation went wrong at some point. The argument seems like that of a child who reasons that, because life is hard, there is no God.

Bestil Exit Evolution på nettet. 198 kr.

I am baffled that these arguments come from a professor, Glenn-Peter Sætre who is, as it says, one of Norway’s most prominent evolutionary scientists. It seems rather unintelligent to play on emotions in an argumentation regarding the causal explanation for life.

Imagine if ID folk did the same, arguing that because flowers are beautiful they must have been created by God. It’s articles like this that make it obvious that the academics who adhere to materialism have stopped doing science. In this the 21st century, it’s the ID researchers who actually are doing science.

Because I have some connection with the ID movement in Norway, I can see clearly see that this attack ont ID is fueled by fear of the thriving Norwegian ID community. Recently a foundation, BioCosmos, was established with the help of a generous donation by a Norwegian shipowner. BioCosmos is meant to help promote ID and, to judge from this reaction, it is beginning to look like a real threat to the neo-Darwinian paradigm.


See also: Dane Karsten Pultz: ID Is Now Thriving In Europe

27 Replies to “Karsten Pultz on the Scandinavians who are threatened by ID

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Yup. In engineering the best and most elegant designs take advantage of negative feedback to accomplish all desired tasks with one part. Brute force designs and first prototypes usually have lots of separate pieces, with each piece serving its own function. God doesn’t do brute force design.

    My favorite elegant design is the Willson automatic buoy, which uses nothing but the surrounding seawater to control its light. It was able to operate without maintenance for a year at a time. Lifelike.

    http://polistrasmill.blogspot......ation.html

    There’s a second factor in Nature that doesn’t have an obvious analogy in machines. God wants us to WORK for our living, and wants every single part of our bodies, including the gut biome, to WORK for its living. Narrow canals have to WORK harder to send the baby into the world.

    When we try to “simplify” life with preprocessed food and preprocessed perception, we halt the WORK of our innards, and the result is riots and rebellions. (Hmm. Sounds familiar right now.)

  2. 2
    Belfast says:

    I do not sweat the pseudo-scientific label that is always placed on intelligent design.
    I just refer to materialism as a pseudo-scientific philosophy, pointless to argue.
    As I do with evolutionary psychology.
    Design has ALWAYS been recognised.
    “ So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?”
    He replied, “An enemy hath done this.”
    And the servants didn’t say, “No, if it was an enemy, he would have fired your barn, and scattered salt, and broken your fence to allow sheep and goats in,.”

  3. 3
    Eugene says:

    This sort of argument (“bad design”) assumes that the Designer somehow should have cared for near-perfect outcome for each and every creature on Earth. I am not sure why they make such an assumption. Quite the opposite, given the enormous complexity and variety of life, the underlying design process is likely “quick and dirty”. My favorite analogy is children in elementary school designing animals as part of their art class, those getting grades above C are rewarded with having their designs compiled into a genome to then be added to Earth ecosystem. Would one then still expect perfectly designed animals?

  4. 4
    JVL says:

    Eugene: Quite the opposite, given the enormous complexity and variety of life, the underlying design process is likely “quick and dirty”. My favorite analogy is children in elementary school designing animals as part of their art class, those getting grades above C are rewarded with having their designs compiled into a genome to then be added to Earth ecosystem. Would one then still expect perfectly designed animals?

    I quite like the image of a room full of alien children designing living creatures for Earth. I wonder who came up with the platypus?

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    This sort of argument (“bad design”) assumes that the Designer somehow should have cared for near-perfect outcome for each and every creature on Earth.

    I agree, it’s a stronger argument against creationism than ID.

  6. 6
    BobRyan says:

    Bob O’H and others like to humanize God, which is strange for people who supposedly do not believe in God. They do not look at the universe as Einstein did. He made it clear the more he studied the universe the more he believed in God. Einstein was raised by atheist and sent to secular schools. There is nothing in his upbringing that he would have used to come to the conclusion that God does exist.

    How many people understand quantum entanglement? There are maybe a dozen in the world who can look at it and not get a headache. These are the brightest in their field and none of them come close to Einstein’s genius. The intellect that created the universe is far beyond even Einstein and should not be humanized.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Too funny, taking all the genius of all the scientists put together on earth, and setting them to the task of building a single butterfly wing, will never produce a single butterfly wing. And yet, with no clue of just how clueless they are, Darwinists feel free to say that the design that they have no hope of ever reproducing, is somehow flawed. There is a ‘ugly’ flaw in all of this alright. It is the ‘ugly’ flaw of the unmitigated hubris that Darwinists constantly display in the face of something that they, apparently, do not even have the faintest clue of beginning to understand.

    Metamorphosis
    http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com/clips.php

    In a 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote:

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.””

  8. 8
    ET says:

    When evos start designing better organisms I will start listening to their “bad design” arguments. Until then all they have is their ignorance and desperation.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    I agree, it’s a stronger argument against creationism than ID.

    Why? Creation does NOT call for a perfect Creation. Creation doesn’t say that entropy doesn’t happen.

    So what is your reasoning, Bob O’H?

  10. 10
    Fasteddious says:

    Not only do these “bad design” arguers make unwarranted assumptions, place themselves in judgement over creation, and ignore engineering design tradeoffs, but they also ignore two other effects:
    First, you cannot judge a design if you don’t know the specifications and constraints that directed the design: size, cost, complexity, environmental conditions, development time, and so on. There is no such thing as a “perfect design”, only one that optimally meets the requirements. If you don’t know all the requirements, you cannot judge the resulting design!
    Second, there has been devolution since the original designs were put in place somewhere back in time. Take the loss of the human ability to make vitamin C, for example. As Michael Behe clearly shows in Darwin Devolves, genomes tend to lose information, and genes break over the generations – the true results of random mutation and natural selection.

  11. 11
    Latemarch says:

    JVL
    I quite like the image of a room full of alien children designing living creatures for Earth. I wonder who came up with the platypus?
    A committee.

  12. 12
    OldArmy94 says:

    Can’t the argument cut both ways? If an evolutionary outcome was so bad, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated it by now?

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    If you can cite examples of what is judged to be good design as evidence for an intelligent designer then you have to allow examples of what is arguably bad design as evidence against the existence of such a being. They are not strong arguments in either case, however, in the case of an undefined designer since we have no way of knowing his/hers/its capabilities and limitations.

  14. 14
    JClark says:

    It’s an appeal to ignorance, plain and simple. We don’t make these things, we don’t have the optimization landscape. Anyone who has done any engineering knows there are tradeoffs everywhere, and even perfect designs will have points of failure. Offering magical hypotheticals that won’t be tested or even drawn up does nothing in a discussion about reality.

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    ET @ 9 – there’s a big difference between a prefect creation and a collection of cock-ups, some of which could easily be avoided.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Bob O’H, you are welcome to your opinion. Just remember that is all it is. YOU could never do any better. Never.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    seversky:

    If you can cite examples of what is judged to be good design as evidence for an intelligent designer then you have to allow examples of what is arguably bad design as evidence against the existence of such a being.

    The mechanisms of unguided evolution can produce a bad design. But only from a once good design. Meaning what unguided processes can do is damage and deform what already exists.

    They are not strong arguments in either case, however, in the case of an undefined designer since we have no way of knowing his/hers/its capabilities and limitations.

    Sheer stupidity. How do we know that the ancients were capable of designing and building the Antikythera Mechanism? We found it!. We know what past designers were capable of by the things they left behind for us to discover.

    Why are evos so ignorant of that?

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The use of the term “design” is confused.

    Design = created for a purpose, to fulfill an idea or function. A plan.

    In that view, there is just Design or Chance. A thing is designed or not. To say “good design” is irrelevant. The child creating with Legos, showed “Design”. It’s not Chance.

    The other meaning of the term Design gets thrown into the conversation as a diversion.

    Design – style. Elegant pattern. Its what a Graphic Designer does. “The building has a beautiful Design”.

    That definition is used to replace the other one and so the conversation is about “good design or bad design”. But “bad design” is Design. Its a functional process. An organism replicates, seeks nutrition, moves towards or away from, seeks to preserve life. That is all purposeful action – Design.

    The fact that living organisms die – why not just use that as an example of “bad design”? Wouldn’t a perfect design be that all organisms have god-like powers and are immortal beings?

    People who made a career admiring and studying Darwin and his disciples are usually not capable of grasping basic philosophical concepts. It’s no surprise when Darwinists make the stupidest arguments, and are never able to recognize when they’ve been refuted.

  19. 19
    forexhr says:

    Question for evolutionists: can you name one “evidence for evolution” that is not based on the fallacy of naturalism? Below are the details.

    First the observation. From the time of the hypothetical last divergence point until today, evolution has been changing all the existing species for many millions of years. Humans and chimps for more than 5 myr. Lemurs 40 myr. Fig Wasps 60 myr. Rats, crocodiles, coelacanths and nautiluses for 100, 200, 350 and 500 myr respectively. Yet, not a single organism within a species has been observed that would even start transforming the pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones, let alone developing a myriad of de novo ones like in the imaginary scenarios of whale evolution and Cambrian explosion that lasted just 10-15 myr. So scientifically, the observable evolution is creatively as powerless as a stone, regardless of time. Logically it follows, there must be some unobservable designer.**

    And now the “evidences for evolution”. ERVs for example, can simply mean that the designer upgraded DNAs of preexisting species to get novel species instead of creating DNAs from scratch for every new species. Fosil record (whale for example) can mean that the designer decided to upgrade the DNA of a land animal to see what kind of aquatic animal will turn out. Etc.,etc. So the “evidences for evolution” are not actually “evidences” but logical fallacies. All are based on a single philosophical premise, and that is: “only humanly observable, that is natural, causes can exist”. If only such causes can exist, then by simple philosophical fiat ERVs or land-aquatic animal transition was due to the evolutionary causes, as they are “humanly observable”. But as this premise was falsified by the observation that such causes are creatively powerless, then what evidences are there for evolution that is not based on the fallacy of naturalism?

    **Regarding the designer from a logical point of view. If the snail in front of you cannot see you, does it mean you don’t exist? Or to put it another way. If all people would be blind, and we would never detect (discover) light, does it mean the light doesn’t exist? Well, of course not. The reality is not depended on whether humans can detect it. So just because people’s detecting devices (bio-organs or artificial equipment) cannot detect the designer, that doesn’t mean he is nonexistent. It is rational to assume that our detecting devices are simply not capable to detect the type of stimuli that make up the designer the same as blind people are not capable to detect light with their ears or nose.

  20. 20
    Seversky says:

    Forexhr @ 19

    Question for evolutionists: can you name one “evidence for evolution” that is not based on the fallacy of naturalism?

    What is the “fallacy of naturalism”?

    Yet, not a single organism within a species has been observed that would even start transforming the pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones, let alone developing a myriad of de novo ones like in the imaginary scenarios of whale evolution and Cambrian explosion that lasted just 10-15 myr.

    The changes you are describing would take place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Human science has only been researching this for two or three hundred years. What would you expect to see over that timescale?

    And now the “evidences for evolution”. ERVs for example, can simply mean that the designer upgraded DNAs of preexisting species to get novel species instead of creating DNAs from scratch for every new species. Fosil record (whale for example) can mean that the designer decided to upgrade the DNA of a land animal to see what kind of aquatic animal will turn out.

    Exactly, You can explain anything by just saying the Designer/God did it. Except that it doesn't. When you ask science for an explanation you are expecting an explanation of "how". All you offer as an alternative is a possible "who".

    All are based on a single philosophical premise, and that is: “only humanly observable, that is natural, causes can exist”.

    If you can’t observe something, even indirectly, how do you know it exists? I’d like to believe in The Force but, sadly, there is no evidence that something like that is out there even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    But as this premise was falsified by the observation that such causes are creatively powerless, then what evidences are there for evolution that is not based on the fallacy of naturalism?

    What do you mean by “creatively powerless”?

    There is a significant amount of evidence that living things can and do change over time in response to environmental pressures. There are changes in the genome which are largely random with respect to the survival of the organism That is basically all that is required for us to infer evolution occurs and it is what we observe. We don’t observe the handiwork of an extraterrestrial designer or anyone’s God.

    So just because people’s detecting devices (bio-organs or artificial equipment) cannot detect the designer, that doesn’t mean he is nonexistent.

    It doesn’t mean such a being exists either. If you want to persuade me or anyone else that it does then the burden of proof is with you to support your claim.

    It is rational to assume that our detecting devices are simply not capable to detect the type of stimuli that make up the designer the same as blind people are not capable to detect light with their ears or nose.

    That may be true but you’ll need to provide more than just a possibility to persuade others that it is actually true.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    seversky:

    The changes you are describing would take place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

    You don’t even know if they are possible.

    There is a significant amount of evidence that living things can and do change over time in response to environmental pressures.

    Slight changes. Nothing that suggests that prokaryotes could have evolved into eukaryotes.

    There are changes in the genome which are largely random with respect to the survival of the organism

    And there are changes that are not random with respect to survival.

    If you want to persuade me or anyone else that it does then the burden of proof is with you to support your claim.

    Compared to what you have, ID has far exceeded your demand.

    That may be true but you’ll need to provide more than just a possibility to persuade others that it is actually true.

    Again, compared to what you have, ID easily meets your demand.

    Your willful ignorance, question-begging and equivocation are all duly noted.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 20 asks,,,

    What is the “fallacy of naturalism”?

    I don’t know what Forexhr will answer, but the “fallacy of naturalism” for me is the unfounded and self refuting belief that science MUST BE based upon the philosophy of naturalism, i.e. methodological naturalism.

    Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Seversky goes on,

    The changes you are describing, (i.e. whale evolution and the Cambrian Explosion), would take place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Human science has only been researching this for two or three hundred years. What would you expect to see over that timescale?

    I would expect to see at least some substantiating evidence for Darwinism in microbes, especially on the molecular level,

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski’s project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,,
    ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

    Richard Lenski and Citrate Hype — Now Deflated – Michael Behe – May 12, 2016
    Excerpt: ,,, for more than 25 years Lenski’s lab has continuously grown a dozen lines of the bacterium E. coli in small culture flasks, letting them replicate for six or seven generations per day and then transferring a portion to fresh flasks for another round of growth. The carefully monitored cells have now gone through more than 60,000 generations, which is equivalent to over a million years for a large animal such as humans.,,,
    In 2008 Lenski’s group reported that after more than 15 years and 30,000 generations of growth one of the E. coli cell lines suddenly developed the ability to consume citrate,,,
    the authors argued it might be pretty important.,,,
    They also remarked that,,, perhaps the mutation marked the beginning of the evolution of a brand new species.,,
    One scientist who thought the results were seriously overblown was Scott Minnich, professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho ,,,
    So Minnich’s lab re-did the work under conditions he thought would be more effective. The bottom line is that they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski’s lab did as easily as falling off a log — within weeks, not decades.,,,
    Richard Lenski was not pleased.,,,
    In a disgraceful move, Lenski impugned Scott Minnich’s character. Since he’s a “fellow of the Discovery Institute” sympathetic with intelligent design,,,
    (Regardless of the ad hominem) With regard to citrate evolution, the Minnich lab’s results have revealed E. coli to be a one-trick pony.,,,
    The take-home lesson is that,,, (Lenski’s overinflated) hype surrounding the (implications of the citrate adaptation) has seriously misled the public and the scientific community. It’s far past time that a pin was stuck in its (Lenski’s citrate) balloon.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02839.html

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    “The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’
    – Behe – (p. 155).

    Seversky goes on,

    Exactly, You can explain anything by just saying the Designer/God did it. Except that it doesn’t. When you ask science for an explanation you are expecting an explanation of “how”. All you offer as an alternative is a possible “who”.

    The argument that Seversky is making here is generally known as the ‘God of gaps’ fallacy,

    “A God of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as a ‘argument from ignorance’. It is an informal fallacy. Arguments from ignorance have the following form.,,,
    1. Cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X
    2. Therefore cause B must have produced effect X
    ,,, but if I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce effect X, then I have committed a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because, just because cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X doesn’t mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that that other cause is capable of doing it (i.e. producing the effect in question). That then becomes a God of the gaps argument when you say various natural processes are not sufficient to produce, say, the origin of the first life or the origin of the first animals in the history of life. If I were then to say, “Therefore God did it”, that would be a God of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance.
    But that is not how we are arguing when we make the case for Intelligent Design because we are adding an additional premise. We are saying that.,,,
    1. Various natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule).
    2. We do know of a cause that does produce (functional digital) information. (We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind,,, can create (functional digital) information.),,,
    ,,, so we are not arguing from our ignorance. We are arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect in the world. (Specifically we are arguing from what we know minds can do, i.e. produce information.)
    – Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM

    Seversky goes on,

    If you can’t observe something, even indirectly, how do you know it exists? I’d like to believe in The Force but, sadly, there is no evidence that something like that is out there even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    Yet Seversky does have evidence for the reality of ‘the force’. Namely, the computer sitting right in front of Seversky. Although immaterial information and immaterial mind are not directly observable by our physical eyes, their reality can both be inferred from the effects that they bring about. For instance, the computer sitting right in front of Seversky:

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view:
    Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y.
    Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,,
    Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter).
    This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,,
    Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.,,,
    h. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-con.....s_2012.pdf

    Seversky then asks,

    What do you mean by “creatively powerless”?

    My guess would be that he means exactly what he says, unguided material processes have never been observed to created anything, ZILCH, NADA,,,, not one protein/gene. Not one molecular machine, not anything,

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way.
    – Doug Axe PhD.

    Seversky goes on,

    There is a significant amount of evidence that living things can and do change over time in response to environmental pressures. There are changes in the genome which are largely random with respect to the survival of the organism That is basically all that is required for us to infer evolution occurs and it is what we observe.

    First, DNA changing in response to environmental influences, in and of itself, falsifies Darwinian presupposition that changes in the genome should be entirely random,

    Gloves Off — Responding to David Levin on the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH)
    Lee M. Spetner – September 26, 2016
    In the book, I present my nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis (NREH) that accounts for all the evolution that has been actually observed and which is not accounted for by modern evolutionary theory (the Modern Synthesis, or MS). ,,,
    The NREH, on the other hand, teaches that the organism has an endogenous mechanism that responds to environmental stress with the activation of a transposable genetic element and often leads to an adaptive response. How this mechanism arose is obscure at present, but its operation has been verified in many species.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_-_r/

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Secondly, ‘directed mutations’ in and of themselves, all by their lonesome, directly falsifies the primary Darwinian presupposition that mutations are ‘supposedly’ completely random occurrences.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 2014
    Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
    On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
    http://edge.org/response-detail/25264

    Probability of change in life: Amino acid changes in single nucleotide substitutions – June 2020
    Excerpt of Abstract: mutations are assumed to be random in the bereft of selection pressures,,,,
    (Yet) Our calculations reveal an enigmatic in-built self-preserving organization of the genetic code that averts disruptive changes at the physicochemical properties level.,,,
    Discussion
    We found in-built intrinsic biases and barriers to drastic changes within the genetic code. Within single mutational events, there are fixed probabilities for the type of change in selection pressure-free conditions that are far from random.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264720300393

    Seversky then states,

    We don’t observe the handiwork of an extraterrestrial designer or anyone’s God.

    Who is this ‘we’ that you keep referring to?

    “Life did not evolve first on Earth; a highly advanced civilization became threatened so they devised a way to pass on their existence. They genetically-modified their DNA and sent it out from their planet on bacteria or meteorites with the hope that it would collide with another planet. It did, and that’s why we’re here. The DNA molecule is the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information is absolutely staggering. The DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design.
    Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical first so-called’ simple cell(s). Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization. They programmed the molecules so that when we reached a certain level of intelligence, we would be able to access their information, and they could therefore — teach” us about ourselves, and how to progress. For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible.”
    Francis Crick – Life Itself – September 1982

    Some researchers have apparently taken Crick’s suggestion that, “Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization”, seriously and they now claim to have detected an Intelligently Designed extraterrestrial ‘WOW signal’ in DNA

    In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the “Wow!” Signal of Intelligent Design – March 12, 2013
    Excerpt: “The ‘Wow! signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code.” Their paper has been accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, where it’s already available online.
    Their title comes from a curious SETI signal back in 1977 that looked so artificial at first, a researcher wrote “Wow!” next to it.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....69941.html

    The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code – May 2013
    Excerpt: Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin,,,
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

    Seversky then states,

    It doesn’t mean such a being exists either. If you want to persuade me or anyone else that it does then the burden of proof is with you to support your claim.

    Well, if one is to ever ‘see’ evidence for God, it might greatly facilitate matters if atheists did not automatically assume this following posture whenever they supposedly examine the evidence for God in an unbiased fashion,

    Atheists examining evidence for God:
    https://news-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2014/11/13/australian-protesters-bury-their-heads-in-the-sand-to-protest-government-climate-policies-1415899909.jpg

    Seversky goes on

    That may be true (that we have no physical detectors to detect God) but you’ll need to provide more than just a possibility to persuade others that it is actually true.

    Actually God did give you a ‘detector’ to detect his handiwork. (And even an iphone to communicate with Him via prayer), i.e. The detector and iphone of your very own immaterial human mind:

    Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.

    I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans 1:19-20

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  24. 24
    forexhr says:

    Seversky@ #20
    Fallacy of naturalism is the assumption that only humanly detectable (natural) causes can exist. That is, those that are detectable to our organs or equipment. But the same as your ears cannot detect light or your nose cannot detect sound, it is possible that all our organs and equipment cannot detect a myriad of causes near or far from us that might exist.

    So logically, whatever exists in nature can be caused by either humanly detectable (HD) or humanly undetectable (HU) causes. How can we tell whether is it one or the other? Well, it’s simple. By using science. Science is a tool for discovering and observing the operation of HD causes. If it is known through repeated experiments and observations that a particular thing comes into existence via HD causes, then obviously, HU causes are excluded. However, if it is known through repeated experiments and observations that a particular thing literally never comes into existence via HD causes, then, the only possible explanation are HU causes.

    Interestingly, such thing, or more precisely things, do exist and are called organs. They literally never come into existence via HD causes. Here is how we know that.

    Evolution of all the existing species from the time of their splitting off from their most recent common DNA carrier until today is the natural/live experiment that tested whether evolution (HD cause) can create novel organs or transform them into functionally distinct ones like in imagined whale evolution (forelimbs into flippers, tail into flukes, nostrils into blowholes, teeth into baleen, ears into biosonar, etc.). Today, we can observe the results of this experiment. They demonstrate, without an exception, that not a single species, has even started to transform their organs into functionally distinct ones let alone created de novo ones. Take for example humans. We and chimps diverted from our common DNA carrier 5 million years ago and since then undergone enormous number of evolutionary changes. But is there a human individual or population that has organs not present in other human individuals or populations? Well, obviously not. All humans are functionally identical, that is, they have exactly the same organs without a single trace of their transformation like in the imagined whale evolution. The same is true for all other species, regardless of their last divergence point. For nautiluses, this point was 500 million years ago. But again, not a single individual or population within this species is functionally different from the other. So regardless of time, new organs literally never come into existence via HD causes. Here, these causes are mutations and natural selection.

    Therefore, the repeated experiments and observations (science) lead us to only one conclusion: organs came into existence via HU causes. Philosophical naturalism (PN) claims the opposite to this scientific conclusion. This makes PN anti-science. The same is of course true for methodological naturaism, which is the procedural commitment of scientists to PN when doing science.

  25. 25
    JClark says:

    ET @ 17/ Seversky @ 13:

    They are not strong arguments in either case, however, in the case of an undefined designer since we have no way of knowing his/hers/its capabilities and limitations.

    Sheer stupidity. How do we know that the ancients were capable of designing and building the Antikythera Mechanism? We found it!. We know what past designers were capable of by the things they left behind for us to discover.

    An argument whose source I’ve forgotten springs to mind: How do we know dinosaur fossils aren’t just rocks? If we don’t know the genetics, how can we argue that a biological process made those skeletonoids?

  26. 26
    ET says:

    It’s called research, JClark. For one there aren’t any non-biological processes that can produce a skeleton of any living organism. For another we know that organisms die and can get buried. And we also know what may happen after that. Research.

  27. 27
    Truthfreedom says:

    18 Silver Asiatic

    People who made a career admiring and studying Darwin and his disciples are usually not capable of grasping basic philosophical concepts. It’s no surprise when Darwinists make the stupidest arguments, and are never able to recognize when they’ve been refuted.

    I miss you! 🙂

Leave a Reply