Complex Specified Information Intelligent Design Naturalism

Life from a rock?

Spread the love

Over the last couple of centuries, science has had great success in explaining natural phenomena in terms of natural processes. For example, research and development efforts have given us automobile engines that are much more efficient than they were when cars first came on the scene. The science of biology has also exhibited tremendous advancement in probing the inner workings of the cells of life. Shouldn’t science continue this trend in searching for a natural explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth?

Why shouldn’t we assume that inanimate objects (atoms and molecules) in conjunction with natural sources of energy can create life? One reason is that our advancing knowledge of the biochemical activities within the cell has revealed a metropolis of mechanisms that far surpasses the functional complexity of anything else observed in the universe. We could plausibly continue to assume that life arose naturally if it could be demonstrated that natural processes systematically increase the information content of closed systems over time. But to persist in believing that nature can do something that contradicts natural law is not science, but a form of idolatry.

Prescientific peoples used to worship rocks or carved pieces of wood and declare, “My father!” But that practice became unfashionable well before the age of science. So then, it was thought that the Earth gave birth to life (exchanging a small rock for a large one). But scientists began to realize that even this was unlikely, so an appeal was made to the greater universe for the origin of life.1  With the advent of further understanding of the vast information content of biomolecules and the low probability of any sort of chance assemblage of such molecules within our universe, the size of the “rock” was enormously expanded to encompass multiple universes. How much bigger could it get? Does size even matter? Isn’t it all fraught with the same essential absurdity—calling a rock, “My father!”?

Perhaps we unconsciously ascribe fertility to the Earth, since out of its soil grow all of the plants that provide food for animals and for us. And yet the Earth would produce nothing without the seeds of the plants. One of biology’s “universal laws” (accredited to Rudolph Virchow) states, “Every cell comes from a pre-existent cell.”2 So, we look to the seed, and what do we find? A rich storehouse of information coded in the seed’s DNA. We find information as the source of the physical complexity of life; the Earth is just the environment in which the seed’s hidden information can be unfolded and activated.

From where does the information embedded within the seed come? Not from the Earth, nor from the stars, nor from the Big Bang origin of the physical universe.

Canceled Science, p. 212

The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has said, “information…is the link between the metaphysical Creator and the physical creation. It is the hidden face of God.”3 

1. F. H. C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus 19 (1973): 341-346.

2. Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001), p. 99.

3. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone, New York, 2001), p. 49.

69 Replies to “Life from a rock?

  1. 1
    es58 says:

    didn’t read the post but the outer quote is Self evident

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Darwinists believe in miracles. How else does life come from no life, or the universe and laws of physics being created? They believe all happened through a natural miracle without a shred of evidence to discount God.

  3. 3
    William J Murray says:

    The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic.

    This is probably the most surprising thing I’ve read from Dr. Hedin. i mean, this is seriously, blatantly dumb, and Dr. Hedin seems to be a very intelligent person.

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    As soon as the word “God” is used, it points to something specific. We usually use this word with a capital to refer to a specific creator.

    While science and logic most definitely points to a creator of immense intelligence as the source of the universe and Earth, it does not point to any specific religious interpretation of this creator. For that one has to go to other sources besides science.

    Logic can point to other aspects of the creator. For example, intent and purpose seem obviously part of the creation and logic then helps us understand more about the creator but definitely far from everything that is part of the plan.

    And while life as we know it seems to be part of this plan and also extremely complex, it does not mean that the creator of the universe and the creator of life are the same entity.

  5. 5
    William J Murray says:

    In addition to what Jerry said, there’s also “a mind so far above our own ..”

    My most charitable interpretation of this would be if by “mind” Dr. Hedin is actually referring to intelligence, specifically the capacity of intelligence to apparently generate highly complex, coherent, organized, functioning sets of information.

    I don’t think we know enough about the role of “intelligence” when it comes to acquiring/generating information. Note: I did not say sentience, but rather whatever “intelligence” is. The existence of autistic savants, acquired savant (sudden genius) syndrome, and people (like Tesla) who just seemed to “receive” already-existent information from some unknown source casts doubt on the idea that what we call relative degrees of “intelligence” has much to do with the ability to produce astounding amounts of quality information.

    Our idea of the order of this, that intelligence is the cause of this kind of information, seems to me to be incorrect due to the counterfactuals above. It seems more like intelligence is more like how we grade the quality of the information that is coming through the sentient being. IOW, it’s not a cause, it’s a description, the same way that gravity is not a cause, but rather a description.

  6. 6
    chuckdarwin says:

    The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic.

    It seems that every time I open this blog, there is one more piece of evidence that ID is inexorably evolving into a full- fledged religion…..

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    The creator of the universe most definitely had life as we know it as part of the plan for the universe. That is obvious.

    Whoever created life, that creator also has a massive intelligence and a purpose that is consistent with the creation of the universe. They may or may not be the same entity but obviously acted in sync somehow if they are different.

    Aside: another supercilious but specious comment from our resident master of the non-sequitur and ongoing fallacy generator.

    It seems that every time I open this blog, there is one more piece of evidence that ID is inexorably evolving into a full- fledged religion

    Someone should teach him logic.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has said, “information…is the link between the metaphysical Creator and the physical creation. It is the hidden face of God.””

    And while this logical inference to God is certainly a perfectly valid, and solid, inference to make, it is necessary to dive a little more deeply into the exact nature of ‘information’ in order to more ‘scientifically’ link the information content in life more directly to God,

    When Darwinists and ID proponents debate about information, the vast majority of times they are debating over the classical sequential information found in life. More specifically, the vast majority of times Darwinists and ID proponents debate over the fact that unguided material processes are found to be grossly inadequate to account for the ‘classical’ sequential information found in DNA and proteins,,

    Answering an Objection: “You Can’t Measure Intelligent Design”
    Casey Luskin – July 16, 2021
    Excerpt: Of course 10^150 represents the “probability bound” for the entire universe, but when we consider the number of elementary particles and time available for different zones of the universe, we obtain the following probability bounds, as well as the information content they represent, measured in bits:
    Universal probability bound: 10^-150 (or 498 bits)
    Galactic probability bound: 10^-96 (or 319 bits)
    Solar System probability bound: 10^-85 (or 282 bits)
    Earth probability bound: 10^-70 (or 232 bits)
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/answering-an-objection-you-cant-measure-intelligent-design/

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

    And while the ‘classical’ sequential information content of a typical bacterium is impressive,,

    “a “typical” bacterial genome is around 5 million bp and encodes about 5000 proteins,,,”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4361730/

    And while the ‘classical’ sequential information content of a typical bacterium is impressive, (and is far beyond the capacity of unguided Darwinian to explain the origin of), that ‘classical’ information content pales in comparison to the amount of ‘positional’ information that is found in a typical bacterium when working from the thermodynamic perspective.

    The information content of a ‘simple’ cell, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order of 10^12 bits,

    Molecular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/

    And 10^12 bits is equivalent to approx. 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
    – Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

    Now that massive amount of information for ‘simple’ life certainly invokes a fairly strong inference to God

    But to go even further than that in inferring God,,, in regards to thermodynamics and life, Dr. Brian Miller states that, “No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”

    “‘Professor Dave’ argues that the origin of life does not face thermodynamic hurdles. He states that natural systems often spontaneously increase in order, such as water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), He is making the very common mistake that he fails to recognize that the formation of the cell represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy. In contrast, water freezing represents both a decrease in entropy but also a decrease in energy.
    More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure.
    Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom.
    No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”
    – Brian Miller, Ph. D. – MIT
    – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour
    https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434

    And Dr. Miller also stated,, “the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy.,, The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.”

    Thermodynamic Challenges to the Origin of Life – Brian Miller – March 27, 2020
    Excerpt: The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.,,,
    The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/thermodynamic-challenges-to-the-origin-of-life/

    i.e., it is only by an intelligence imparting (positional) information into ‘a local system of molecules’ that we are able to move toward lower entropy and higher energy at the same time in order to move towards life.

    Importantly, and as far as empirical science is concerned, Dr. Miller’s claim has now been experimentally realized.

    In the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    As Christopher Jarzynski, (who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’), stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, the Maxwell demon thought experiment has now been extended to build ” a tiny machine powered purely by information,”.

    New Scientist astounds: Information is physical – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-physical/

    In fact, as of 2021, a ‘Information engine’ has now been constructed that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells,”

    World’s fastest information-fuelled engine designed by SFU researchers – May 11, 2021
    Excerpt: Simon Fraser University researchers have designed a remarkably fast engine that taps into a new kind of fuel — information.
    The development of this engine, which converts the random jiggling of a microscopic particle into stored energy, is outlined in research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and could lead to significant advances in the speed and cost of computers and bio-nanotechnologies.
    SFU physics professor and senior author John Bechhoefer says researchers’ understanding of how to rapidly and efficiently convert information into “work” may inform the design and creation of real-world information engines.
    “We wanted to find out how fast an information engine can go and how much energy it can extract, so we made one,” says Bechhoefer, whose experimental group collaborated with theorists led by SFU physics professor David Sivak.
    Engines of this type were first proposed over 150 years ago but actually making them has only recently become possible. 
    “By systematically studying this engine, and choosing the right system characteristics, we have pushed its capabilities over ten times farther than other similar implementations, thus making it the current best-in-class,” says Sivak. 
    The information engine designed by SFU researchers consists of a microscopic particle immersed in water and attached to a spring which, itself, is fixed to a movable stage. Researchers then observe the particle bouncing up and down due to thermal motion.
    “When we see an upward bounce, we move the stage up in response,” explains lead author and PhD student Tushar Saha. “When we see a downward bounce, we wait. This ends up lifting the entire system using only information about the particle’s position.”
    Repeating this procedure, they raise the particle “a great height, and thus store a significant amount of gravitational energy,” without having to directly pull on the particle.
    Saha further explains that, “in the lab, we implement this engine with an instrument known as an optical trap, which uses a laser to create a force on the particle that mimics that of the spring and stage.”
    Joseph Lucero, a Master of Science student adds, “in our theoretical analysis, we find an interesting trade-off between the particle mass and the average time for the particle to bounce up. While heavier particles can store more gravitational energy, they generally also take longer to move up.”
    “Guided by this insight, we picked the particle mass and other engine properties to maximize how fast the engine extracts energy, outperforming previous designs and achieving power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells, and speeds comparable to fast-swimming bacteria,” says postdoctoral fellow Jannik Ehrich.
    https://www.sfu.ca/university-communications/issues-experts/2021/05/world-s-fastest-information-fuelled-engine-designed-by-sfu-resea.html

    An ‘Information engine’ that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells”?

    As if an ‘information engine’ that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells”
    was not more than enough to make a committed Darwinian materialist’s head spin, in quantum information theory it is also held that entropy is not a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system

    As the following article states, “James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    And in the following 2011 paper, researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    To repeat, “In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    That statement is simply completely devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, and is a full empirical vindication of the presuppositions of Intelligent Design, where it is held that only an Intelligent Mind has the capacity within itself to create the information that is needed to ‘thermodynamically’ explain life.

    Moreover, to show that it is indeed God who is imparting this massive amount of ‘positional’ immaterial information into life, (in order to ‘locally’ circumvent the second law with immaterial information), I can appeal to advances in quantum biology.

    Specifically, Quantum Entanglement/Coherence, and/or Quantum Criticality, is now found to be ubiquitous within life. i.e. It is found within every important biomolecule of life.

    As the following 2015 article entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”, stated, “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Even DNA itself is now found to be dominated by quantum information, not by classical information. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    In is also important to point out that ‘classical’ sequential information, (such as what is encoded on DNA, proteins, etc..), is a subset of quantum information.

    Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif
    below that illustration they have this caption,
    “Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.”
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the (empirical) finding of pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of ‘hidden variables’, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Excerpt: In 1959, John Stewart Bell deduced his eponymous theorem: that no system of hidden variables can reproduce all of the consequences of quantum theory. In particular, he deduced an inequality pertinent to observations of an entangled system consisting of two separated particles. If experimental results contradicted Bell’s inequality, hidden-variable models could be ruled out. Experiments of this kind seemed difficult or impossible to carry out. But, in 1972, Alain Aspect succeeded. His results contradicted Bell’s inequality. The predictions of quantum mechanics were confirmed and the principle of local realism challenged. Ever more precise tests of Bell’s inequality and its extension by John Clauser et al. continue to be performed,14 including an experiment involving pairs of photons coming from different distant quasars. Although a few tiny loopholes may remain, all such tests to date have confirmed that quantum theory is incompatible with the existence of local hidden variables. Most physicists have accepted the failure of Einstein’s principle of local realism.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit

    Whereas on the other hand, the Christian Theist readily does have a beyond space and time cause that he can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information that is now found to be ubiquitous within life. And indeed, Christians have been postulating just such a cause for a few thousand years now. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    It is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have fairly strong empirical evidence indicating that we do indeed have a transcendent, metaphysical, component to our being, a “soul”, that is, in principle, capable of living beyond the death of our material/temporal bodies.

    As Stuart Hameroff succinctly stated in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance.

    As Jesus once asked his disciples and a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Of supplemental note, long before DNA, and the information therein, were even known about, and/or discovered, Christianity was on record claiming that life had an ‘author’.

    Acts 3:15
    You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Also of additional note:

    Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm.
    December 25, 2021
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50-christmases-later/#comment-743334

  11. 11
    relatd says:

    CD at 6,

    Oh no! A religion. Can’t have that.

    Seriously, the odds of life by chance have gone beyond any reasonable, scientific interpretation. And so evolution, as described in Biology textbooks, did not happen. So even though ID, the science, does not describe the “intelligence,” individual people can. It’s God, the Christian God.

  12. 12
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    CD at 6

    I know, right?
    It’s like, embrace, deny, embrace, deny.
    The truth keeps slipping out.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    The truth keeps slipping out

    The truth that there is a creator has become obvious.

    It’s no longer slipping out. It’s out.

    Someone else who is in denial. Where do they come from?

    Now how can we learn more about this creator? That would be the intelligent question

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    Relatd: It’s God, the Christian God.

    Interestingly enough, I recently found out that Isaac Newton was a anti-trinitarian. From Wikipedia:

    Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity,[146] with one historian labelling him a heretic.[147]

    By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early Church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton “recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him.”[148] He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, “the great apostasy was trinitarianism.”[149]

    Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair.[150]

    In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.[151] In 1999, historian Stephen D. Snobelen wrote, “Isaac Newton was a heretic. But … he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unraveling his personal beliefs.”[147] Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an anti-trinitarian.[147]

    The view that Newton was Semi-Arian has lost support now that scholars have investigated Newton’s theological papers, and now most scholars identify Newton as an Antitrinitarian monotheist.[147][152]

    Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton’s best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, “So then gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the Divine Power it could never put them into such a circulating motion, as they have about the sun”.[154]

    Along with his scientific fame, Newton’s studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John.[155] He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date.[156]

    He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia “I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity”.[157] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: “Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice”. But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities.[158] For this, Leibniz lampooned him: “God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion.”[159]

    Newton’s position was vigorously defended by his follower Samuel Clarke in a famous correspondence. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace’s work Celestial Mechanics had a natural explanation for why the planet orbits do not require periodic divine intervention.[160] The contrast between Laplace’s mechanistic worldview and Newton’s one is the most strident considering the famous answer which the French scientist gave Napoleon, who had criticised him for the absence of the Creator in the Mécanique céleste: “Sire, j’ai pu me passer de cette hypothèse” (“Sir, I didn’t need this hypothesis”).[161]

    Scholars long debated whether Newton disputed the doctrine of the Trinity. His first biographer, David Brewster, who compiled his manuscripts, interpreted Newton as questioning the veracity of some passages used to support the Trinity, but never denying the doctrine of the Trinity as such.[162] In the twentieth century, encrypted manuscripts written by Newton and bought by John Maynard Keynes (among others) were deciphered[64] and it became known that Newton did indeed reject Trinitarianism.[147]

    Now, I don’t know much about such things so I’ll just ask: Was Newton a Christian in the same way you are? Would you consider his ‘god’ the same as yours?

    (I realise this has nothing to do with God being the creator but I thought it was an interesting theological point of discussion. I am familiar with the Unitarian church and I always wondered if they should be considered Christians . . .)

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note: This video, via Discovery Institute, was just uploaded,

    Challenge to Origin of Life: Energy Harnessing (Long Story Short, Ep. 7)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMl5RinuAlw

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    By the way, quantum entanglement is no big deal. Humans have built quantum computers.

    Unitarians are not Christians per se. You can have any beliefs and join.

  17. 17
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 13,

    Read the Bible.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the claim that Newton was heterodox:

    “Now there is a debate among scholars about,, Newton. He was a devout Christian of some kind. The question is. Was he an orthodox Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ and the trinity? Or was he more of an Arian, heterodox, Christian who believed in a transcendent God, but as some of our friends in Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, (also) believed that Jesus was created to be an agent of God in the world, and was the exemplar to man, but not fully defined?,, That’s the more common view of Newton’s theological position, but I’ve come to doubt it in recent years. I’ve been made aware of some scholarship by a historian of,, science named Thomas Pfizenmaier. In a seminal article called, “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”. And what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian. And therefore did believe in the divinity of Christ. I first got skeptical about this, (interpretation that Newton was non-trinitarian), when I saw that passage in the General Scholium, (of Newton’s “Principia’), which is a close paraphrase to the passage in Colossians. Which says, “In Christ all things are held together.”. (As well), He (Newton) wrote a lot on Messianic prophecy.”
    – Stephen Meyer – The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – 52:47 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ?t=3167

    Was Isaac Newton an Arian? (non-trinitarian?) – Thomas Pfizenmaier
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988

    Of related note, Newton was also NOT a Deist as some atheists have tried to claim.

    Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991)
    Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the “rational” restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century.
    Newton’s voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes’ version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God’s will. Second, Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do.
    It is indeed ironic that such a theologically interesting story should remain largely unknown among theologians, not to mention other scholars. Even the late Richard S. Westfall, the leading Newton scholar of our time and a keen student of Newton’s theological views, mostly failed to see the relevance of Newton’s theological views for the content of his natural philosophy (science). Much scholarship on Newton hitherto has been dominated by the “conflict” school of historiography, growing out of the Enlightenment, according to which religion and science are bitter opponents that cannot possibly influence one another in positive ways; relations of the sort detailed here have gone unnoticed, for they have been inconceivable. In this essay, however, we see the degree to which Newton himself was not an Enlightenment person — not a “Newtonian,” as that term is typically understood.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

    Further notes:

    February 2022 – Seeing that the ‘divine will’ of God, (sustaining the universe in its continual existence), played such an integral part in Newton’s ‘science’, (and although modern science has certainly come a long way since Newton first started the Scientific Revolution), let’s just simply say that Newton would be very pleased to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/isaac-newtons-whole-career-we-are-told-was-a-pursuit-of-the-divine/#comment-746449

    “If you have missed Newton’s Theism you have missed everything”
    Stephen Meyer – – Wrong Again: Neil deGrasse Tyson Misrepresents Legacy of Sir Isaac Newton
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgohHoK9mQo

    Isaac Newton’s life was one long search for God – (February 2, 2022) – Marcelo Gleiser
    Excerpt: Although we correctly learn in schools that Newtonian physics is a model of pure rationality, we would dishonor Newton’s memory if we overlooked the crucial role God plays in his Universe. It may be true that to understand Newton’s scientific achievements we can neglect the more metaphysical side of his personality. But that is only half the story — for Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God. It is no exaggeration to say that his life was one long search for God, one long search for communion with the Divine Intelligence, which Newton believed endowed the Universe with the beauty and order manifest in nature. His science was a product of this belief, an expression of his rational mysticism, a bridge between the human and the Divine.
    https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/

    Isaac Newton: His Science and Religion – Stephen D. Snobelen
    Excerpt: At this point Newton launches into a majestic description of the God he found in Nature and Scripture. This Being, Newton begins, “rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator”. Then follows an account of God’s eternity and omnipresence that is shot through with biblical language. Newton’s God is sovereign over time and space. This twofold sovereignty, Newton suggests, ultimately underpins all things in time and space: “All the diversity of created things, each in its place and time, could only have arisen from the ideas and will of a necessarily existing being”. … At the end of the explicitly theological section of the General Scholium Newton writes: “This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of experimental philosophy” (changed to “natural philosophy” in the 1726 third edition of the Principia). Thus for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural philosophy, but rather are integral to it.
    – Snobelen
    https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-in-science-religion-and-society.pdf

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/16

    By the way, quantum entanglement is no big deal. Humans have built quantum computers.

    Unitarians are not Christians per se. You can have any beliefs and join.

    Perhaps Unitarians believe the three parts of the Trinity are quantum-entangled into single entity.

  20. 20
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 19,

    You are a singular… uh… singular… uh… let me get back to you on that.

    – OR –

    In this case, I can replace, ha, ha, ha, with groan, groan, groan.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    “quantum entanglement is no big deal”

    Well, the decades of experimentation, and very angry debate between physicists, over quantum entanglement, i.e. over ‘spooky action at a distance’, certainly begs to differ.

    As well, you do also realize that man-made quantum computers are no where near the sophistication of the ‘quantum computing, and/or quantum ‘searching”, that we are witnessing in life do you not? i.e. protein folding,, DNA search problems, etc.. etc.. ??

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: As to the claim that Newton was heterodox:

    It’s pretty clearly supported by reading what he actually wrote:

    As well as rejecting the Trinity, Newton’s studies led him to reject belief in the immortal soul, a personal devil, literal demons (spirits of the dead), and infant baptism.[15] Although he was not a Socinian, he shared many similar beliefs with them.[15] They were a unitarian Reformation movement in Poland. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published.

    Newton’s work of New Testament textual criticism, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690. In it, he reviews evidence that the earliest Christians did not believe in the Trinity.

    Newton’s view on 1 John 5:7

    Using the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”, that support the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that “the Æthiopic, Syriac, Greek, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Eastern European Armenia, Georgia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading”.[5] He argued[6] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding that removing the interpolation makes “the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of ‘the Three in Heaven’ you interrupt and spoil it.”[7] Today most versions of the Bible are from the Critical Text and omit this verse, or retain it as only a marginal reading. However some will argue that the verse is not a later corruption.[8]

    Newton’s view on 1 Timothy 3:16

    Newton argued that, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word “God” was substituted to make the phrase read “God was manifest in the flesh” instead of “which was manifested in the flesh”.[n 1] He attempted to demonstrate that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.[9] This change increases textual support for trinitarianism, a doctrine to which Newton did not subscribe.[10][11] There is evidence that the original Greek read ‘??’ but was modified by the addition of a strikethrough to become ‘??’ (see the excerpt from the Codex Sinaiticus, above). ‘??’ was then assumed to be a contraction of ‘????.’ The biblical scholar Metzger explains, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (?) supports ????; all ancient versions presuppose ?? or ?; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading of ????.”[12] In other words, Bible manuscripts closest to the original said ‘who’ and not ‘God’ in verse 16.

    Newton did not publish these findings during his lifetime, likely due to the political climate. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were subject to persecution in England. The Blasphemy Act 1697 made it an offence to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office and employment on the first occasion, further legal ramifications on the second occasion, and imprisonment without hope for bail on the third occasion. Newton’s friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.[16]

    The dissertation was published in 1754.

    Newton clearly, but privately, was an anti-trinitarian. It’s very clear. He said so himself but did not tell many people because of his fear of prosecution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 21,

    They figured it out. It is no longer “spooky” or anything like that. Bigger and better quantum computers are coming.

    https://www.ibm.com/quantum

    The quantum, meaning sub-atomic, interactions occurring in living things is being figured out as well. Artificial photosynthesis, for example.

    https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/soaking-up-the-sun-artificial-photosynthesis-promises-a-clean,-sustainable-source-of-energy.html

    Scientists brainwashed by years of “evolution,” meaning God did not do it, can’t see certain things because the brainwashing prevents it. Those who are starting to figure things out, while still believing God did not do it, are making some progress.

    Take molecular switches that regulate cell processes.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-022-00407-0

  24. 24
    Caspian says:

    WJ Murray @3
    You’re right that this was not the most academically rigorous statement, but it achieved the objective of stirring up some commentary.
    However, I would hope that negative ad hominem comments would be replaced with comments that address the stated content.
    Is there a vast amount of complex specified information resident within a seed?
    Can natural processes produce the complex functional biochemistry representative of that information? If so, where is this seen (outside of the focus of the discussion–namely living things)?
    If natural causes cannot accomplish something, is it not logical to assume that a super-natural (or metaphysical) cause is responsible?
    To ascribe this to “God” is a reasonable conclusion, but the term, “God,” could be taken as shorthand for some being intelligent and capable enough to accomplish the outcome.
    Any further thoughts?

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Relatd, so quantum entanglement is no longer ‘spooky’ in your book?

    Well golly gee whiz, thanks for clearing that up.

    Geez.

  26. 26
    chuckdarwin says:

    Pater Kimbridge/12
    There is a lot of approach-avoidance happening in the ID world. Maybe even enough for a good social psych dissertation. But it’s never been a big secret, that the Christian God would win the day. The game was rigged from the start. Presently we see what I call God of the Gaps 2.0–updated to exploit the latest mysteries in science while trying to keep the pews from emptying out completely. You can have your science and eat it too………..

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, an atheist, blatantly ignores the fact that Newton’s Theistic views, whatever they might specifically be, are diametrically opposed to his atheism, and wants to attack Newton as a heterodox Christian.

    This diversionary tactic reveals all we really need to know about JVL and his lack of intellectual honestly with himself and others.

    But anyways, and again, (and apart from his biased wikipedia citation), there are good reasons to doubt that Newton was heterodox:

    “Now there is a debate among scholars about,, Newton. He was a devout Christian of some kind. The question is. Was he an orthodox Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ and the trinity? Or was he more of an Arian, heterodox, Christian who believed in a transcendent God, but as some of our friends in Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, (also) believed that Jesus was created to be an agent of God in the world, and was the exemplar to man, but not fully defined?,, That’s the more common view of Newton’s theological position, but I’ve come to doubt it in recent years. I’ve been made aware of some scholarship by a historian of,, science named Thomas Pfizenmaier. In a seminal article called, “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”. And what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian. And therefore did believe in the divinity of Christ. I first got skeptical about this, (interpretation that Newton was non-trinitarian), when I saw that passage in the General Scholium, (of Newton’s “Principia’), which is a close paraphrase to the passage in Colossians. Which says, “In Christ all things are held together.”. (As well), He (Newton) wrote a lot on Messianic prophecy.”
    – Stephen Meyer – The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – 52:47 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ?t=3167

    Was Isaac Newton an Arian? (non-trinitarian?) – Thomas Pfizenmaier
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988

  28. 28
    relatd says:

    CD at 26,

    The game was rigged. Ah hah. Thanks for exposing the conspiracy. Feel free to publish The Wedge Document.

    Soon, you, yes you, will be living under a Theocracy… Gasp!

    “In February 2022, the Vatican released statistics showing that in 2020 the number of Catholics in the world increased by 16 million to 1.36 billion. That means that 17.7% of the world’s population is Catholic.”

  29. 29
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 25,

    The military has this technology but 5 to 10 years more advanced than what is available to the public. Just don’t tell Russia or China.

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: an atheist, blatantly ignores the fact that Newton’s Theistic views, whatever they might specifically be, are diametrically opposed to his atheism, and wants to attack Newton as a heterodox Christian.

    I’m not attacking Newton at all. I am merely pointing out that Newton, as he himself wrote, thought the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was a corruption of the original message. He said so himself and you can actually read his monograph because it’s been digitised:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The first paragraph alone makes his view clear. You can continue to deny that this is the case but you will have ignore something that Newton wrote and sent to a friend. I feel that it is respectful to represent him as he himself saw himself.

    I am well aware of Newton’s deeply thought through theological beliefs and the fact that it is in opposition to my own views is not the point or why I brought up his documented anti-trinitarianism. I just thought it was interesting and wondered if, in the view of some of the commenters here, he would be considered a Christian today.

    Have you actually read what he wrote? Don’t you think you should before you draw conclusions that may not be correct?

    This tactic reveals all we really need to know about JVL and his lack of intellectual honestly with himself and others.

    Anyone can follow the above link I provided and read what Newton wrote. Just read the first two, brief, pages and see what you think. Unless you’re afraid of being shown to be incorrect.

    But anyways, and again, there are reasons to doubt that Newton was heterodox:

    I’ll take the man at his own word(s) which he committed to paper (sixty-six pages worth) and sent to a friend. I would consider the man’s own statements to be a better judge of his beliefs than anyone else’s interpretations especially if those interpretations are based on public statements which, as has been made clear, were subject to scrutiny and possible prosecution if they were judged to be heretical. The title of the work is: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture which he reiterates at the beginning of section II on page two.

    Admitting that Newton was an anti-trinitarian has nothing to do with your own beliefs or reasons for having them. It harms you not at all to acknowledge something that is clearly true. Unless . . . you can’t bear having been wrong. In which case you have to defend your clearly incorrect position beyond the point of sensibility.

    Also, remember, that scholarly opinion of Newton’s beliefs is NOT just based on this one document. It’s a kind of smoking gun to be sure. I would suggest that anyone who cherry picks Newton’s beliefs is at risk of drawing an incorrect conclusion and being accused of confirmation bias or trying to bend someone else’s own beliefs to fit their own.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL again,

    “Now there is a debate among scholars about,, Newton. He was a devout Christian of some kind. The question is. Was he an orthodox Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ and the trinity? Or was he more of an Arian, heterodox, Christian who believed in a transcendent God, but as some of our friends in Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, (also) believed that Jesus was created to be an agent of God in the world, and was the exemplar to man, but not fully defined?,, That’s the more common view of Newton’s theological position, but I’ve come to doubt it in recent years. I’ve been made aware of some scholarship by a historian of,, science named Thomas Pfizenmaier. In a seminal article called, “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”. And what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian. And therefore did believe in the divinity of Christ. I first got skeptical about this, (interpretation that Newton was non-trinitarian), when I saw that passage in the General Scholium, (of Newton’s “Principia’), which is a close paraphrase to the passage in Colossians. Which says, “In Christ all things are held together.”. (As well), He (Newton) wrote a lot on Messianic prophecy.”
    – Stephen Meyer – The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – 52:47 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ?t=3167

    Was Isaac Newton an Arian? (non-trinitarian?) – Thomas Pfizenmaier
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988

    To emphasize, via Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (which is Newton’s Alma Mater), according to the best present scholarship available, “what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian.”

    You are right, Newton’s views on the trinity “has nothing to do with your own beliefs or reasons for having them.” And indeed, I believed that Newton was a heterodox Christian for years without being overly troubled by it, and thus was pleasantly surprised when Dr. Meyer pointed this recent scholarship on Newton’s belief out.

    But as for you, and seeing that Newton can rightly be called the father of modern physics, I certainly can see no easy resolution for your ‘scientific atheism’, which is diametrically opposed to the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which Newton held, and which lay behind the founding of modern science.

    Michael Egnor: Judeo-Christian Culture and the Rise of Modern Science – July 23, 2022
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/michael-egnor-judeo-christian-culture-and-the-rise-of-modern-science/

    Thus JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place?

    That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd..

  32. 32
    martin_r says:

    chuck @6

    It seems that every time I open this blog, there is one more piece of evidence that ID is inexorably evolving into a full- fledged religion…..

    :))))))))))))))))

    you clown … says someone who BELIEVES in the most absurd / stupid/ ridiculous ‘scientific’ theory every developed … developed by a bunch of romantics (biologists and other -logists) who have no idea what they talk about … that is the reason why this theory is so absurd and ridiculous … these people just talking nonsense because they are not qualified to comment on these things … we hear the most absurd things a scientist can claim …. made-up stories …. just-so stories … fairy tales … on top of that, these people are always wrong … we hear every day about new findings challenging decades-long Darwinian dogmas :)))))))) BUT OF COURSE … HOW ELSE … this is how it ends, when you have been telling just-so stories for 150 years …

    ID or creationism at least makes sense unlike Darwinism …. Darwinism requires high level of faith :))))))))))

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: To emphasize, via Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (which is Newton’s Alma Mater), according to the best present scholarship available, “what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian.”

    Clearly there are differing views on the matter. Again, I’ll take Newton based on what he himself said in private to avoid persecution. Persecution from the Christian authorities who had terrorised Galileo before (was that encouraging science?) and people who Newton knew of for heretical beliefs.

    But as for you, and seeing that Newton can rightly be called the father of modern physics, I certainly can see no easy resolution for your ‘scientific atheism’, which is diametrically opposed to the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which Newton held, and which lay behind the founding of modern science.

    I have never denied or side-stepped Newton’s deeply held theological views. Again, I take him at his own words. I don’t feel I have to ‘resolve’ anything. Lots and lots of science is done, even by Newton, without reference to a creator or design. Newton clearly thought the design was there, no question. He probably did feel motivated to find the design and the order he thought was put there by a creator. But there have been plenty of curious and outstanding scientists, past and present, who have not shared that view and their work is also important and, in some cases, foundational. It should be unnecessary to point out that Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagorus, Hypatia, Hippocrates, etc were not Christians. I don’t know about Fibonacci or Cardano or Descartes or Fermat or many of the pre-Newtonian scientists and mathematicians but I suspect many who came after him like Lebnitz, Legrange, Gauss, LaPlace, L’Hopital, Abel, Poincare, Cantor, Hilbert, Hardy, Ramanujan, Russle, Tesla, Edison, Maxwell, etc were far less devote. I left off Euler who did profess a deep faith but you’d never know that if you only read his mathematical work.

    Thus JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place?

    Because it’s clear that all you need is a deep seated curiosity about how the world works to do science. The ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians showed that along with the Chinese and Muslims. Oddly enough, once the Christians took over science in the west stalled out for about a thousand years after that. That fact alone makes me question the necessity of Christian thought to motivate the development of scientific practices and thinking.

    All cultures who have had the stability and money to fund experimentation along with the desire to build things that are bigger and faster and more powerful have pushed the scientific boundaries. When the west became quite wealthy and rich compared to the rest of the planet they pushed the boundaries even more. The fact that they were Christian I think is coincidental. Have you been to Rome or Athens or Egypt and seen the things they built and constructed which are still extant? The Pantheon in Rome is a concrete dome that is nearly 2000 years old! Stonehenge was around 2500 BC!! And there are those pyramids. (I should also point out that the Mayans built incredibly large and difficult structures well before the Christians showed up.) The Christians came up with nothing like that for a millennium. They didn’t immediately pick up from what the ancient cultures had done, they forgot all those skills and abilities for centuries. Just look at the early Christian art, it’s childlike compared to what the Greeks and Romans had been making. Granted, in Rome and some of the surrounding areas some of the ancient building techniques were continued but were they improved upon or furthered? Not until the second millennium.

    That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd..

    When the Christians finally had the time and inclination to pursue science they started where the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had been before. If anything, Christianity slowed down the progress of science.

    Just because your deeply held faith is central to your own values and morals and beliefs and practices does not mean that that is true for everyone else or for the many cultures whose accomplishments are still incredible and inspiring especially considering how many of them were built sometimes thousands of years before Christ was born and, in the case of Stonehenge and the Pyramids, before there was even an organised Jewish faith. I celebrate all the creative and hard working ‘scientists’ who have changed the world without trying to tie them to a particular theological view. Especially when they lived and worked before Christianity existed.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL your references to Newton’s own words does not contradict the point that Dr Meyer made in the video, but instead reinforces it.

    Perhaps you should read ‘Newton’s own words’ more carefully with what Dr. Meyer stated in mind?

    The rest of your post is a dodge to the fact that you have no rational philosophical basis for doing science. Sorry, but ‘curiosity’ is certainly not going to get you out of your jam with having the right philosophical presuppositions for doing science.

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

    The Christian Origins of Science – Jack Kerwick – Apr 15, 2017
    Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,,
    Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,,
    In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.”
    He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”
    https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593

    Intelligent Design as a “Science Stopper”? Here’s the Real Story – Michael Flannery – August 20, 2011
    Excerpt: If the “ID is a science stopper” argument rests on weak philosophical foundations, its historical underpinnings are even shakier. The leading natural philosophers (what we would call “scientists” today) of the 16th through 18th centuries, the men who established modern science as we know it — Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, Harvey, Newton — would have considered the MN (Methodological Naturalism) dogma absurd and indeed rather peculiar. In fact, James Hannam has recently examined this issue in some detail and found that religion, far from being antagonistic or an impediment to science, was an integral part of its advance in the Western world (see my earlier ENV article on the subject).
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/id_a_science_stopper_heres_the/

    Is Religion a Science-Stopper? – REGIS NICOLL – OCTOBER 18, 2017
    Excerpt: On the Shoulders of Giants
    Christians remained in the vanguard of scientific discovery well into the nineteenth century. Groundbreaking advances in electro-magnetism, microbiology, medicine, genetics, chemistry, atomic theory and agriculture were the works of men like John Dalton, Andre Ampere, Georg Ohm, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, William Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and George Washington Carver; all believers whose achievements were the outworking of their Christian faith.
    Scientists in the truest sense of the word; these were investigators who doggedly followed the evidence wherever it led, approaching the gaps of understanding not with “God did it!” resignation, but with “God created it” expectation.
    https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/religion-science-stopper

    Etc.. etc.. etc.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Of final note, since I have many other things to do today I will comment no further on this thread. But my absence from the thread should not be taken to mean that I concede any further falsehood that JVL may try to repeat or claim.

  36. 36
  37. 37
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: your references to Newton’s own words does not contradict the point that Dr Meyer made in the video, but instead reinforces it.

    Have you actually read what Newton wrote in the letter I linked to?

    Perhaps you should read ‘Newton’s own words’ more carefully with what Dr. Meyer stated in mind?

    Have you actually read what Newton wrote in the letter I linked to?

    The rest of your post is a dodge to the fact that you have no rational philosophical basis for doing science. Sorry, but ‘curiosity’ is certainly not going to get you out of your jam with having the right philosophical presuppositions for doing science.

    Well, apparently the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans and Chinese and Muslims and Mayans and Aztecs had what it takes. Lest we forget the people who built Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe. And there was those mound builders in pre-Christian North America. Some of the things those cultures created are still in existence. You can go see them. Strangely not a single one of those cultures was Christian and only one of them could be even considered People of The Book. But I guess we can just ignore all the stuff those people did because they didn’t consider Jesus to be their own personal saviour. Seems a pity but that’s what you’re telling me. Yup, those heathen/pagan Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had no reason for building such lasting structures, for creating vast quantities of art, large amounts of literature . . . unless . . . unless they too had a philosophical outlook that also said there was some kind of order and reason for the world being the way it was. But, if that’s the case then Christianity has no unique claim to provide that impetuous. It’s a real puzzle. Unless you’ve already made up your mind.

    But my absence from the thread should not be taken to mean that I concede any further falsehood that JVL may try to repeat or claim.

    Did you actually read what Newton wrote?

  38. 38
    relatd says:

    JVL at 37,

    Have you read any books about the Mound Builders? My readings show that since the native people of North America lived nomadic lives, these mounds contained artifacts that imply they were discarded. So they were garbage dumps for indigenous people and no different from the massive hills built by modern people that contain broken artifacts from our current civilization.

    Have you read anything about native American beliefs? It’s a bit more complicated than what you imply.

    Your philosophical outlook is “Look. Here are civilizations that did great things, so God – any version – is not required. Man, by himself, does not need God.” Look up Aztec mythology. Get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Gods certainly dominated ancient life.

    Christianity exists in the present since it deals with things that actually happened since the foundation of the world.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    Relatd: So at the end of the day, your only apparent goal is not just supporting atheism but that man without God/gods is pure and more creative.

    Clearly that’s not what I was saying. Clearly what I was saying is that many cultures have been creative and scientific, not just the Christian ones. And, arguably, the foundation of scientific thinking was laid down by the pagan Greek philosophers. And, arguably, once Christianity was on the ascendancy many of the skills and techniques that built Ancient Rome fell into obscurity.

    Why did the process of mummification disappear in Egypt?

    I’m not an Egyptologist so I can’t answer that question authoritatively but I do know that because of generations of warfare internally and externally Egypt lost a lot of man power and money. You can see that when you compare the pyramids (tombs) and the tombs created for the later pharaohs. Eventually the Greeks came in and basically took over the country and they didn’t embalm their dead as far as I know.

    Why did the Roman Empire fade away?

    Well, they probably overextended themselves during the early centuries AD and then there ended up being a lot of infighting between the rulers and ruling class. The empire split and started to shrink and was unable to fight off some of the incursions being made especially from the north east. The Christian church barely managed to hold on and they smartly sent out missionaries to covert the pagan hordes. But those missionaries didn’t teach the converts mathematics or construction or building techniques.

    And what happened to the knowledge gained?

    Some of the knowledge was transmitted via written material but while that works for mathematics or philosophy and history it’s not so good with painting and sculpture and architecture. With no strong central authority to collect taxes and spend money for large scale civic constructions and support for artisans and artists the skills faded and died. And then people were not taught to read and write by the monks and clergy. Alfred the Great is estimated to have learned to read in his 40s. Most medieval leaders spent most of their time on warfare and protected their territory or trying to collect more territory. Few nations or states had enough money or were at peace long enough to support much more that smaller scale efforts: some jewellery, some sculpture, some illustrated manuscripts. But big building projects? Large urban development? Not so much. I’m not saying it never happened but not like when the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians were in charge at their peaks. Not until the second millennium did the Gothic Cathedrals start to arise. Not until there were some rich centralised powers were artists paid large commissions to create (mostly ecclesiastical) works of art. Sure, by the time of Raphael the Catholic Church WAS the major building and artistically powerhouse of Europe. But that was well over 1000 years after it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

  40. 40
    es58 says:

    Jerry @ 4: “While science and logic most definitely points to a creator”
    I was lazy when I made my comment @ 1. I thought to have changed it to “creator” but, just posted.

  41. 41
    relatd says:

    JVL at 39,

    Did you read the descriptions for the books I posted at 36? It’s clear to me that Christianity, through the Catholic Church, saved ancient documents from being lost. The Church created the University. A place where expert painters, for example, could teach others. The same with other subjects.

    Or are you saying that the Church impeded progress in all areas? Cultural and scientific?

    Your view of the ancient world focuses on money, large building projects and warfare. I can assure you, the Catholic Church, and monks copying ancient manuscripts, brought everything forward.

  42. 42
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Have you read any books about the Mound Builders? My readings show that since the native people of North America lived nomadic lives, these mounds contained artifacts that imply they were discarded. So they were garbage dumps for indigenous people and no different from the massive hills built by modern people that contain broken artifacts from our current civilization.

    They had pretty convoluted designs if they were just for waste disposal. Have you looked at the patterns they constructed? They aren’t just mounds. I’d use rubbish as well if there was plenty of it about but if I just wanted to get rid of stuff I wouldn’t build complicated designs.

    Have you read anything about native American beliefs? It’s a bit more complicated than what you imply.

    All I said was that they weren’t Christians.

    Your philosophical outlook is “Look. Here are civilizations that did great things, so God – any version – is not required. Man, by himself, does not need God.” Look up Aztec mythology. Get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Gods certainly dominated ancient life.

    Okay, if that’s the case, that some kind of theology is required, then Christianity has no unique claim to be the one necessary source for a philosophical basis for science.

    Christianity exists in the present since it deals with things that actually happened since the foundation of the world.

    Most faiths make statements based on some kind of conjecture about the foundation of the world. Have you looked into Zoroastrianism? It sounds very much like Christianity in many aspects. And they all think or claim that they are dealing with things that actually happened. There are thousands of origin stories that have been proposed and believed.

    So, again, what special claim does Christianity have?

    Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal, transcendent, all-good, and uncreated supreme creator deity, Ahura Mazda, or the “Wise Lord”

    Zoroastrian theology includes foremost the importance of following the Threefold Path of Asha revolving around Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds. There is also a heavy emphasis on spreading happiness, mostly through charity, and respecting the spiritual equality and duty of both men and women

    The religion states that active and ethical participation in life through good deeds formed from good thoughts and good words is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster’s concept of free will and Zoroastrianism as such rejects extreme forms of asceticism and monasticism but historically has allowed for moderate expressions of these concepts.

    In Zoroastrian tradition, life is a temporary state in which a mortal is expected actively to participate in the continuing battle between Asha and Druj. Prior to its incarnation at the birth of the child, the urvan (soul) of an individual is still united with its fravashi (personal/higher spirit), which has existed since Ahura Mazda created the universe. Prior to the splitting off of the urvan the fravashi participates in the maintenance of creation led by Ahura Mazda. During the life of a given individual, the fravashi acts as a source of inspiration to perform good actions and as a spiritual protector.

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Did you read the descriptions for the books I posted at 36? It’s clear to me that Christianity, through the Catholic Church, saved ancient documents from being lost. The Church created the University. A place where expert painters, for example, could teach others. The same with other subjects.

    The Muslims copied and preserved many, many Greek and Roman texts actually. Look it up. The Muslims had many places of learning as did the Greeks and Romans. Hypatia, as just one example, taught at such a place in Alexandria in the 400s . .. maybe. Certainly Pythagorus had his own school of education.

    Or are you saying that the Church impeded progress in all areas? Cultural and scientific?

    No but I’m saying that we call the first 1000 years of the Christian Era the dark ages because a lot of learning and skills and techniques were largely forgotten or lost and the church didn’t get things going again on its own. It took something else.

    Your view of the ancient world focuses on money, large building projects and warfare. I can assure you, the Catholic Church, and monks copying ancient manuscripts, brought everything forward.

    Who read those ancient manuscripts? Not the common folk. Not even the ruling class. Only the monks themselves. Meanwhile, in the Muslim world they had international centres of learning like Baghdad where astronomy and mathematics in particular were being developed. Algebra is a Arabic term as are the names of many stars and astronomical features and events. Our numerals are Arabic. What were the Christians doing at the same time? Not very much. Yes, they did make lots of very pretty copies of mostly Christian texts but were they sponsoring centres of learning, were they helping to develop mathematics and astronomy? Were they building large scale irrigation systems?

    In 762 CE, Baghdad was chosen as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, and became its most notable major development project. Within a short time, the city evolved into a significant cultural, commercial, and intellectual center of the Muslim world. This, in addition to housing several key academic institutions, including the House of Wisdom, as well as a multiethnic and multi-religious environment, garnered it a worldwide reputation as the “Center of Learning”.

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    From Wikipedia:

    The Islamic Empire established across Persia, the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, Iberia, and in parts of India in the 8th century made significant contributions towards mathematics. Although most Islamic texts on mathematics were written in Arabic, most of them were not written by Arabs, since much like the status of Greek in the Hellenistic world, Arabic was used as the written language of non-Arab scholars throughout the Islamic world at the time. Persians contributed to the world of Mathematics alongside Arabs.

    In the 9th century, the Persian mathematician Mu?ammad ibn M?s? al-Khw?rizm? wrote an important book on the Hindu–Arabic numerals and one on methods for solving equations. His book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, written about 825, along with the work of Al-Kindi, were instrumental in spreading Indian mathematics and Indian numerals to the West. The word algorithm is derived from the Latinization of his name, Algoritmi, and the word algebra from the title of one of his works, Al-Kit?b al-mukhta?ar f? h?s?b al-?abr wa’l-muq?bala (The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing). He gave an exhaustive explanation for the algebraic solution of quadratic equations with positive roots, and he was the first to teach algebra in an elementary form and for its own sake. He also discussed the fundamental method of “reduction” and “balancing”, referring to the transposition of subtracted terms to the other side of an equation, that is, the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation. This is the operation which al-Khw?rizm? originally described as al-jabr. His algebra was also no longer concerned “with a series of problems to be resolved, but an exposition which starts with primitive terms in which the combinations must give all possible prototypes for equations, which henceforward explicitly constitute the true object of study.” He also studied an equation for its own sake and “in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems.”

    In Egypt, Abu Kamil extended algebra to the set of irrational numbers, accepting square roots and fourth roots as solutions and coefficients to quadratic equations. He also developed techniques used to solve three non-linear simultaneous equations with three unknown variables. One unique feature of his works was trying to find all the possible solutions to some of his problems, including one where he found 2676 solutions. His works formed an important foundation for the development of algebra and influenced later mathematicians, such as al-Karaji and Fibonacci.

    Further developments in algebra were made by Al-Karaji in his treatise al-Fakhri, where he extends the methodology to incorporate integer powers and integer roots of unknown quantities. Something close to a proof by mathematical induction appears in a book written by Al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who used it to prove the binomial theorem, Pascal’s triangle, and the sum of integral cubes. The historian of mathematics, F. Woepcke, praised Al-Karaji for being “the first who introduced the theory of algebraic calculus.” Also in the 10th century, Abul Wafa translated the works of Diophantus into Arabic. Ibn al-Haytham was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, using a method that is readily generalizable for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers. He performed an integration in order to find the volume of a paraboloid, and was able to generalize his result for the integrals of polynomials up to the fourth degree. He thus came close to finding a general formula for the integrals of polynomials, but he was not concerned with any polynomials higher than the fourth degree.

    Absolutely nothing comparable was being done in Christian Europe at that time. Read that last paragraph again; not only were the Muslims translating Greek texts but one of them came up with the rudiments of calculus hundreds of years before Newton was born.

  45. 45
    relatd says:

    JVL at 42,

    I have a friend who declared to me that he was a Zoroastrian years ago. I don’t know if he still is. I know all about it.

    But here is the key statement: “… then Christianity has no unique claim to be the one necessary source for a philosophical basis for science.”

    The Catholic Church has two types of knowledge: secular and spiritual, and, unlike science, can combine the two to present a clear picture to mankind about reality. It is the vanguard and source of truth.

    You say: Look at all these other cultures who did great things in terms of art and science. I’ve read quite a bit about ancient technology. The water wheel to grind grain, the sun dial and what could be determined about large and elaborate buildings. There is still no solid information about how the pyramids were built, how the stones were set in place so precisely.

    You bring this up to say God – any version – is not necessary to create a civilization but that is not true. I think it is very important for you to exalt man and ignore the Christian God completely. In that sense, God is not just unnecessary but an irritant. A source of distress. That man, left to his own devices, can do everything he wants and God and religion are impediments.

  46. 46
    relatd says:

    JVL at 43,

    “No but I’m saying that we call the first 1000 years of the Christian Era the dark ages because a lot of learning and skills and techniques were largely forgotten or lost and the church didn’t get things going again on its own. It took something else.”

    What was this “something else”?

  47. 47
    relatd says:

    JVL at 44,

    Don’t assume I don’t know things. I know we use Arabic numerals and the contributions made by Arab scholars, but they too are children of Abraham. Your attempts to cut Christianity off of human civilization like it was a diseased arm will fail. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    https://www.pas.va/en/about/history.html

    https://www.catholic.com/video/the-myth-of-the-dark-ages

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    Again from Wikipedia:

    The House of Wisdom existed as a part of the major Translation Movement taking place during the Abbasid Era, translating works from Greek and Syriac to Arabic, but it is unlikely that the House of Wisdom existed as the sole center of such work, as major translation efforts arose in Cairo and Damascus even earlier than the proposed establishment of the House of Wisdom. This translation movement lent momentum to a great deal of original research occurring in the Islamicate world, which had access to texts from Greek, Persian and Indian sources. The early existence of Muslims throughout time has always had a connection with the institution of libraries that came to not only be a mechanism of pursuit, but relatively a storehouse of intelligence and mental heritage for all humanity. The rise of advanced searches in mathematics, organized studies, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine began the pursuit for Arab science. This scientific leap established a demand for more and updated translations.

    The House of Wisdom was made possible by the consistent flow of Arab, Persian, and other scholars of the Islamicate world to Baghdad, owing to the city’s position as capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. This is evidenced by the large number of scholars known to have studied in Baghdad between the 8th and 13th centuries, such as Al-Jahiz, Al-Kindi, and Al-Ghazali among others, all of whom would have contributed to a vibrant academic community in Baghdad, producing a great number of notable works, regardless of the existence of a formal academy. The fields to which scholars associated with the House of Wisdom contributed include, but are not limited to, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, and optics. The early name of the library, Khizanat al-Hikma (literally, “Storehouse of Wisdom”), derives from its function as a place for the preservation of rare books and poetry, a primary function of the House of Wisdom until its destruction. Inside the House of Wisdom, there was a culmination of writers, translators, authors, scientists, scribes, and others would meet every day for translation, writing, conversation, reading, and dialogue. Numerous books and documents in several scientific concepts and philosophical subjects and proposals in different languages were translated in this house.

    Again, there was no equivalent Christian institution even though Christianity was centuries older than Islam.

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    And more:

    The Translation Movement lasted for two centuries and was a large contributing factor to the growth of scientific knowledge during the golden age of Arabic science. Ideas and wisdom from other cultures around the world, Greece, India, and Persia, were translated into Arabic contributing to further advances in the Islamic Empire. An important goal during this time was to create a comprehensive library that contained all of the knowledge gained throughout this movement. Advances were made in areas like mathematics, physics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, philosophy, and engineering. The influential achievement of translation revealed to scholars in the empire to the limitless body of early knowledge in the prehistoric Greek tradition, developing the birth of primary scholarship beyond philosophy and scholarship. The engagement across arts and sciences assorts and stretches intelligence realms and brings growth to new methods of understanding. This was accomplished through academic knowledge and creative rehearsal.

    The House of Wisdom was known for being a space for scholarly growth and contribution which during the time greatly contributed to the Translation Movement.

    The Translation Movement started in this House of Wisdom and lasted for over two centuries. Over a century and a half, primarily Middle Eastern Oriental Syriac Christian scholars translated all scientific and philosophic Greek texts into Arabic language in the House of Wisdom. The translation movement at the House of Wisdom was inaugurated with the translation of Aristotle’s Topics. By the time of Al-Ma’mun, translators had moved beyond Greek astrological texts, and Greek works were already in their third translations. Authors translated include: Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Euclid, Plotinus, Galen, Sushruta, Charaka, Aryabhata and Brahmagupta. Many important texts were translated during this movement including a book about the composition of medicinal drugs, a book on this mixing and the properties of simple drugs, and a book on medical matters by Pedanius Dioscorides. These, and many more translations, helped with the advancements in medicine, agriculture, finance, and engineering.

    Furthermore, new discoveries motivated revised translations and commentary correcting or adding to the work of ancient authors. In most cases names and terminology were changed; a prime example of this is the title of Ptolemy’s Almagest, which is an Arabic modification of the original name of the work: Megale Syntaxis.

    Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case.

  50. 50
    relatd says:

    JVL at 48,

    Your thinking is biased toward proving man does not need God, and that Christianity has no unique place since you think man is all. All that man needs is man, “man invents himself.” Jean-Paul Sartre.

    Bringing up Muslim accomplishments is just an attempt to obscure the fact that Arabs are also the children of Abraham.

  51. 51
    relatd says:

    JVL at 49,

    You can repeat that over and over but it does not mean you’re right.

    “Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case.”

    Since you have not studied Christian sources, you look everywhere else. As if you are running away from something. The “terrible” truth is Christianity is the truth. It supports Intelligent Design. It created the University and commissioned great art and music. You insisting otherwise ignores all of the contributions the Church has made across every aspect of human life.

    Your examples are an attempt to find reasons to not believe that. The Church has survived 2,000 years not by luck.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    Relatd: The Catholic Church has two types of knowledge: secular and spiritual, and, unlike science, can combine the two to present a clear picture to mankind about reality. It is the vanguard and source of truth.

    No, that’s your opinion. Look over some of the things I’ve posted about the House of Wisdom in Baghdad.

    There is still no solid information about how the pyramids were built, how the stones were set in place so precisely.

    But clearly they figured out how to do those things, which took centuries in some cases, without the encouragement of Christianity.

    I think it is very important for you to exalt man and ignore the Christian God completely. In that sense, God is not just unnecessary but an irritant. A source of distress. That man, left to his own devices, can do everything he wants and God and religion are impediments.

    I don’t think Christianity has a unique claim to be the one and only way you get scientific thinking and progress. So many other non-Christian cultures have exhibited great abilities which required scientific-type thinking that it’s clear it’s not been the case that only in Western Europe in the last 2000 years has there been that kind of work done.

    What was this “something else”?

    A strong central and fairly rich and stable government. If you’re always fighting to stay afloat or just barely scrabbling by you don’t have the time or money to pay for pure learning and experimentation.

    Don’t assume I don’t know things. I know we use Arabic numerals and the contributions made by Arab scholars, but they too are children of Abraham. Your attempts to cut Christianity off of human civilization like it was a diseased arm will fail. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    After the Church decided to stop pestering people like Galileo it has made some real and significant contributions to science and certainly to culture (the Renaissance was largely funded by the church at least in Italy). But, again, the Christian church has no unique claim to be the sole or even the most important source of inspiration for scientific thinking. It’s just not the case.

    I’m not cutting anyone off but it’s wrong to say without Christianity we wouldn’t have science.

  53. 53
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Your thinking is biased toward proving man does not need God, and that Christianity has no unique place since you think man is all. All that man needs is man, “man invents himself.” Jean-Paul Sartre.

    Sigh. I’m trying to show that the ability and desire to think and progress scientifically is not limited to Christian cultures. All the cultures I have cited have not been atheistic.

    Bringing up Muslim accomplishments is just an attempt to obscure the fact that Arabs are also the children of Abraham.

    I’m not trying to obscure that. But they’re not Christians and folks like Bornagain77 keep telling me that without Christianity you don’t get modern science. And I don’t think that’s true. If Christianity had died out in the 800s I think we’d still have gotten modern science at some point.

    Since you have not studied Christian sources, you look everywhere else. As if you are running away from something. The “terrible” truth is Christianity is the truth. It supports Intelligent Design. It created the University and commissioned great art and music. You insisting otherwise ignores all of the contributions the Church has made across every aspect of human life.

    Yes, I know about Christian faith and such. It didn’t create the ‘university’; there were examples of such things many times over before places like the Western European organisations were formed. Lots and lots of cultures commissioned great art and music as did the Christian church especially during the Renaissance. But the Christian church has no claim to be superior or primary in such matters.

    The claim has been made that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I think that is just not true.

    Your examples are an attempt to find reasons to not believe that. The Church has survived 2,000 years not by luck.

    Zoroastrianism is older. Judaism is older. Jainism is older. Hinduism is older. Confucius lived before Christ. Buddhism is older. Shintoism may be older. All those belief systems still exist and are practiced today. Why have they all survived? Because they feel true to some people somewhere. Some people derive spiritual sustenance and support from those beliefs. You feel in your heart of hearts that Christianity is the one true religion and it sustains you. Great, you’re lucky you’ve found such a community. All those other systems also have their adherents who feel the same way you do.

  54. 54
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/28

    “In February 2022, the Vatican released statistics showing that in 2020 the number of Catholics in the world increased by 16 million to 1.36 billion. That means that 17.7% of the world’s population is Catholic.”

    Looks like we might need another Reformation to deal with all these Papists!

  55. 55
    relatd says:

    JVL at 52,

    “… but it’s wrong to say without Christianity we wouldn’t have science.” Where the heck did I say that? It’s apparent you are believing things that just aren’t true to serve and promote atheism. Galileo was a problem, yes. The Church handled the situation. Galileo wanted to make a big proclamation before all the data was in. But it appears you have no knowledge of what actually happened.

    You’re just saying that the world does not need Christianity – at all. That’s a good claim to make for an atheist, but it’s not true.

  56. 56
    relatd says:

    JVL at 53,

    You mix things together with one goal in mind. Pagan culture differs from religious, non-pagan culture. The truth has spread throughout the world till now. You say, look at the past. They needed no Christianity to do great things so we don’t need Christianity today. In the meantime, the Catholic Church proclaims truths and people follow her teachings.

    And back to the older, older, older. In the old days, BEFORE Christianity, things were great. We don’t need it now since no one needed it during the older, older. Again, good for promoting atheism. However, the Church has remained, she recognizes other religious beliefs, and preaches the Gospel. But it’s not all about spiritual teaching. The Church has written about evolution in great detail, for example. It’s not just about ‘you found something you believe in, good for you,’ it’s about making contributions across all fields of human endeavor. That bothers you. That’s all this is.

  57. 57
    EDTA says:

    JVL,

    >And, arguably, once Christianity was on the ascendancy many of the skills and techniques that built Ancient Rome fell into obscurity.
    Like the ability to build smooth stone roads which were slippery when wet against wagon wheels. So people who actually wanted to get someplace would use the off-road path instead of the expensive Roman roads. But the roads survived a long time that way. Funny, huh?

    >Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case.

    I think you’ve been reading very selectively again. Some things stall and some progress. Progress was made after Rome fell because a large civilization enforces some degree of tradition and uniformity which can easily retard progress. See “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, for many examples of how post-Roman times resulted in some major innovations.

  58. 58
    Marfin says:

    CD & PK As I have stated here many times before my position is to default to the most reasonable explanation , so I find an intelligent creator the most reasonable position to hold.
    Now if you guys have a more reasonable explanation I am all ears , or is it that you just dont want to accept a creator God no matter what.

  59. 59
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Where the heck did I say that

    Bornagain77 says it all the time and it’s his position I was arguing against. I accept that you didn’t say that and that I didn’t acknowledge that that wasn’t your position.

    Galileo wanted to make a big proclamation before all the data was in.

    What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with proclaiming preliminary results? Why should the church be able to vet scientific work especially if, as many believe, that science is a way to discover the beauty and wonder of God’s design? I’m sorry, they threatened Galileo for no good reason.

    You’re just saying that the world does not need Christianity – at all.

    I’m saying Christianity has no unique claim to be the sole source of scientific validation whether in motivation or approval.

    it’s about making contributions across all fields of human endeavor. That bothers you. That’s all this is.

    The church has changed its stance a lot in the last 500 years, all to the good. I have no problem with faith of any kind as long as it doesn’t try to push its views on those who don’t subscribe to its tenets. And, as I have already said, during the Renaissance the church was one of the major funders of some of the finest art and architecture ever produced; albeit all matching their theology.

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    EDTA: Some things stall and some progress. Progress was made after Rome fell because a large civilization enforces some degree of tradition and uniformity which can easily retard progress. See “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, for many examples of how post-Roman times resulted in some major innovations.

    Sure, some things did progress in Western Europe in the medieval times. In other regions there were huge leaps forward in scientific enquiry and results.

    Again, my point was an argument against Bornagain77‘s claim that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I don’t think that is true. I do not think that any faith has a claim to be the only source for the ability to do science. That just doesn’t make sense and it’s easy to find numerous counter examples.

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL instead of defending against my primary criticism against him that his atheistic worldview is a non-starter as far as modern science is concerned,,,

    BA77 at 31: “JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place?
    That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd.”

    JVL, instead of defending against my primary criticism against his atheistic worldview, i.e. that his atheistic worldview can’t possibly ground modern science in the first place, instead goes on the offense against Christianity in particular and says that “my point was an argument against Bornagain77‘s claim that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I don’t think that is true.”

    Well first off, although JVL may falsely claim that other worldviews may have eventually brought forth the scientific method, the fact remains that modern science suffered numerous ‘stillbirths’ in other ancient cultures, and modern science was only successfully brought into existence in medieval Christian Europe and in that culture alone.

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,,
    Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    And again, although JVL will doubtlessly continue to falsely argue that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought forth the scientific method, the fact remains that none of those speculations about what other worldviews may have eventually done does anything to alleviate my primary criticism against him that his own atheistic worldview cannot possibly ground modern science.

    In fact, my criticism against his atheistic worldview goes further than that. I hold that the presuppositions held within his atheistic worldview are, in fact, antagonistic and antithetical to the practice of modern science.

    In the following interview about his latest book, “Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe”, Dr. Stephen Meyer lists the three necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay behind the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    In my honest opinion, out of those three necessary presuppositions, (none of which atheistic materialism can possibly ground), the key and crucial presupposition that led to the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe was the third one, i.e. “Human Fallibility”.

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”

    In short, the doctrine of ‘original sin’ was crucial to the development of science.

    This is how Meyer sums it up in his book,

    “Such a nuanced view of human nature implied, on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions. This composite view of reason—one that affirmed both its capability and fallibility—inspired confidence that the design and order of nature could be understood if scientists carefully studied the natural world, but also engendered caution about trusting human intuition, conjectures, and hypotheses unless they were carefully tested by experiment and observation.”
    – Meyer, Stephen C.. – Return of the God Hypothesis (p. 38)

    And as Emily Morales, via Peter Harrison, noted, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology,,, Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement”,,,

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science
    Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method.
    https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291
    *Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford

    Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph
    https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg

    Inductive reasoning
    Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was championed by Francis Bacon over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in 1620 in his book that was entitled ‘Novum Organum’. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.

    In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work ‘Organon’, which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, ‘Organum’ was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.

    The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016
    Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation

    And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of ‘bottom-up’ inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.

    Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video
    Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

    And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon in his inductive methodology, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from the ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominant form of reasoning up to that time.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

    And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.

    As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”

    Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson
    The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected.
    Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature.
    Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

    In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.

    Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860)
    Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review
    Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
    http://www.victorianweb.org/sc.....rigin.html

    In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.

    And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”

    Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?-
    As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,,
    ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.

    Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, honestly confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

    Scientific Method
    Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote:
    “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

    And now, over a century and a half later, the situation of ‘the facts won’t fit’ still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,

    As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”

    Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview
    Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection.
    Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species.
    After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.”
    – ibid

    In fact, in further proving that Darwinism is not based on Bacon’s inductive form of reasoning, there are now many lines of experimental evidence that directly falsify core presuppositions of Darwin’s theory,,,, empirical falsifications that Darwinists simply ignore.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – list

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Link to Defense of each claim
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/

    Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides being falsified by many lines of empirical evidence ), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology. (i.e. Darwinian evolution is not even needed as a primary presupposition within the ‘top-down’ Deductive form of reasoning of the ancient Greeks).

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” ?Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005?http://www.discovery.org/a/2816?

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    – Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    – Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005?

    Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has simply been a bust. Even Jerry Coyne admits as much

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006)

    In fact, in so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle and/or heuristic in science, it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as with its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, with eugenics, i.e. ‘selective’ abortion, etc.. etc…

    In fact, it is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’.

    Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”

    Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019
    Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately?
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

    And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (masquerading as a empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that, Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom
    What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology –
    July 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    In short, and to repeat, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as true empirical sciences normally do), has instead produced nothing but unimaginably horrid consequences for man..

    Verse:

    Matthew 7:18-20
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

    Thus in conclusion, JVL may falsely claim, and speculate, that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought modern science into existence, but that baseless speculation does nothing to alleviate the fact that his own atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution cannot provide the necessary presuppositions for ‘doing science’ in the first place, and, in fact, his worldview of Darwinian atheism is found to not even be based on the scientific method, i.e. the inductive methodology, of Francis Bacon in the first place.

    And again, if JVL were intellectually honest, this catastrophic failure of his own atheistic worldview to ground, or be grounded within, the scientific method itself should concern him much more greatly than any of the superfluous criticisms against Christianity that he has thus far listed.

    Of supplemental note, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves 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 (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), 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. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply 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 also 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.,,,
    April 18, 2021 – Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595

    Contrary to what atheists such as JVL desperately want to believe, 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;

  64. 64
    chuckdarwin says:

    Martin_r/32
    You might want to clean your keyboard. It looks like your parenthesis key is sticking….

  65. 65
    jerry says:

    Maybe this has been posted but a video from a couple years ago on Darwin’s Doubt has recently been re-published.

    Darwin’s Biggest Problem | Long Story Short: Evolution

    The interesting thing in the video is not the problem of the Cambrian Explosion but the attitude towards Darwin’s ideas. At 7:30 into this short video the announcer says

    If it’s so difficult to prove what these scientists want to believe why do so many cling to their presuppositions

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cT7Z0D7_h4&t=460s

    The more interesting question has always been why do humans fiercely defend the indefensible.

    Here is the YouTube channel that published this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd-MyawrutjiUKl-DfbQ0vQ

    Not a lot published in last two years but just yesterday there was a video on OOL and past few videos were on OOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Axlu-oGkeQ

    The comments reveal the “begging the question” fallacy in full display as true non believers desperately want a non intelligent explanation and just assume it’s there somewhere.

  66. 66
    relatd says:

    It appears to me, just based on comments here, that the Atheist prefers chaos. Quantum mechanics, especially quantum entanglement, is the latest plaything. It is a mystery and a magnet for an atheist interpretation. More chaos. Another incomprehensible phenomenon. Chaos, again.

    Referring to quantum computers, which exist, and experiments with atom smashers, things smaller than atoms are being studied. Events that occur at very short time scales are being studied. Even in living things. Protein folding has no scaffold but it works. Protein folds are intricate and have been modeled in three dimensions. How is this shape maintained? What controls it? As more experiments are done to study living things, two things are observed: greater and greater complexity and incredible order. The interplay of parts is also incredibly complex. Such machinery does not appear by chance.

    Einstein dealt with what was known in his time. I think his ideas will be overthrown. He could not complete his Unified Field Theory, where general relativity and electro-magnetism could be connected. Additional discoveries in fundamental physics are being made and will continue to be made. I propose that a final connection has already been made but such a discovery would remain a closely guarded secret for whoever possessed it.

  67. 67
    chuckdarwin says:

    Relatd/66

    Einstein dealt with what was known in his time. I think his ideas will be overthrown. He could not complete his Unified Field Theory, where general relativity and electro-magnetism could be connected. Additional discoveries in fundamental physics are being made and will continue to be made. I propose that a final connection has already been made but such a discovery would remain a closely guarded secret for whoever possessed it.

    I think you are confusing general relativity, etc., with ID. ID has already come up with a Unified Field Theory: The God of the Bible. And like your “predictions” for Einstein, ID’s ideas will “will be overthrown.” More accurately, ID’s “ideas” likely will never catch on except in religious circles…..

  68. 68
    relatd says:

    CD at 6,

    The wild rantings of a fearful man. Darwin forbid that ID is connected to Christianity by a lot of people. Or worse, gets taught to kids in schools! I was reading some non-reviews about a book on Intelligent Design. The big concern? “If this gets into the schools.”

    I mean, this could topple Atheist-Marxist influence in schools. Some people might start believing in God.

  69. 69
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL et al, while it would be beyond scope of UD for me to engage in more detail, some pointers are advisable. First, there is generic, readily accessible evidence that points to a finitely remote, necessary being root of reality causally adequate for a world containing rational, responsible, morally governed creatures, us. That sets a bill of requisites: powerful, intelligent, knowledgeable, inherently good, utterly wise. On the Science side, cosmological fine tuning that sets up a cosmos adapted in many ways to hosting C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life points to design by extracosmic power. Next, cells have coded, algorithmic D/RNA, pointing to language and goal directed purpose. Beyond, the obvious engineering of life forms (and the subtler integration of ecosystems) point to design even for someone contemplating 4 – 7 kya or beyond. So, it is unsurprising that generic ethical theism or thoughts pointing to it will be found under many heads and in many cultures. However, the Hebraic-Christian frame [and its Islamic offshoot and key aspects of some forms of Hinduism] are distinct. In the Hebraic-Christian frame, the key theme is, God is there and is not silent . . . the modern notion that God is so distant and mysterious has more to do with the corner we have painted ourselves into than anything else. In particular, God speaks to the future and fulfills it, with messiah as key hope. The Christian faith holds that messiah has come, and as Isa 52 – 53 predicted, has suffered, becoming our wounded, once dead, now living healer, saviour, rescuer. And, Lord. With 500 eyewitnesses that could not be silenced. That is the challenge that drove the Christian synthesis of the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, building on the heritage of the Fertile Crescent and its river valley civilisations. That is the challenge that confronts us today. KF

Leave a Reply