The form of reasoning and the type of evidence accepted is the same as with Newton’s theories or Darwin’s, he says.
Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne took after someone writing at the Deseret News who argues that faith and science both play a role in fighting COVID-19. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is (we could have called this one) not impressed:
An objection commonly raised is that “scientific theories can only involve the natural world and cannot demonstrate the existence of supernatural entities.” But that’s incorrect. The Big Bang, to take an example, was not an event in the natural world. It was a singularity, which means that it is undefined and undefinable both mathematically and in conventional physics. Similarly, a cosmological singularity — for example, a black hole — is also a supernatural entity. That just means it is outside of nature. We never observe black holes just as we never can observe the Big Bang. We can only infer — by inductive reasoning — the existence of supernatural entities such as black holes by their effects in the natural world.
This inductive reasoning is precisely what proofs of God’s existence do. We cannot observe God in this life because he is not part of this world. He is supernatural. But we can observe his effects in the natural world just as we inferred the existence of the Big Bang and black holes by observing their effects. It is the same sort of reasoning.
There is one difference though: the evidence and the logic pointing to God’s existence is overwhelmingly stronger than the evidence and logic supporting any other scientific theory in nature. Aquinas’s First Way proof of God’s existence, for example, has exactly the same structure as any other scientific theory. The empirical evidence is the presence of change in nature. Because infinite regress is logically impossible in an essentially ordered chain of changes, there must be a Prime Mover to begin the process and that is what we call God.
Michael Egnor, “Here’s why an argument for God’s existence is scientific” at Mind Matters News
Takehome: We can observe God’s effects in the natural world just as we inferred the existence of the Big Bang and black holes by observing their effects.
See also: Jerry Coyne just can’t give up denying free will. Coyne’s denial of free will, based on determinism, is science denial and junk metaphysics. (Michael Egnor)
The same goes for, well, all of biochemistry and most of cell biology. We never actually observe, say, nerve cells firing, only their effects on needles on our monitors. Therefore brains must be supernatural too!
OK, but black holes were predicted from theory. The theory said they should exist, and gave novel predictions that told us how we would see the effects of black holes. So what is the theory that gives us novel predictions that would show us the effects of God?
Bob O’H:
To say something should exist is very different from having witnessed something. If something is not witnessed and not replicated, it remains hypothesis. A theory is something that has been witnessed and replicated.
In regards to God, there are the known laws of physics. Not a single law could have come about by some random chance, since order does not come from chaos. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet we also know it could not always have existed. It is human arrogance to assume there is nothing smarter than man. God is the created of the laws of physics, which makes God far intellectually superior to man.
Science only cares about reality. So it has to be able to handle the God hypothesis if that is how it really happened.
The reason God is outside of science, is because the name God is defined in terms of that He makes choices. God is said to create the universe, by choice. God is arbiter at the final judgement. etc. God makes choices.
Anything that is on the side of what makes a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion, not with a fact forced by evidence.
This is why emotions, personal character, feelings, the spirit, the soul, God, are all outside of science, because they are all on the side of what makes a choice.
Bob 0,
Your comments about not being able to directly observe the actions of machines in the cell were where I was for quite some time until I was able to talk directly with two working scientists.
It turns out that they do indeed observe actions within the cell such as the kinesin Motor.
See my report on these direct observations at:
https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/interesting-people-i-have-met-e-michael-ostap-ph-d/
A number of months after talking with Dr. Ostap, I was walking through the airport at Philadelphia, and saw some large photos on the wall depicting things happening in the scientific/medical community in Philly. One that caught my attention was a photo that looked somewhat like the animations I had seen of the Kinesin Motor. I looked down at the credits, and there was Dr. Ostap’s name.
The other scientist was from MIT. I attended his lecture at Yale and he also confirmed the capability to observe cell activity.
_____
Take a look at my article to see the questions i had for both scientists.
So yes, we are able to look into the actual machinery of life, and from there infer what those machines infer, include the existence of a creator God.
Ayearningforpublius –
Well, no. Our eyesight isn’t good enough, so we have to use machines to do this: we observe them indirectly, just as we indirectly observe black holes using machines.
What? So looking through a microscope and directly observing something is actually indirect? All of the pictures of biological structures are indirect viewing?
Black holes/ gravity wells make sense form an intelligent design PoV. Let the forces of nature keep galaxies together.
I wear glasses so I guess I never see anything directly unless I take them off (then I only see them fuzzily).
I guess I wrote my comment for those who, like me, just didn’t know the story behind those amazing animations such as the Kinesin Motor.
I didn’t know that Bob O’H had already debunked the recorded videos and the animations. He’s so much “scientifically” smarter than me.
Good job Bob, we can now disregard the research that Dr. Ostap does in trying to help those with hearing problems.
Oh yea, I do wear hearing aids, but the music and conversations I now hear are just illusions, as are the people I see behind my eyeglasses talking to me.
Thanks so much Bob for the education, but since I can’t directly hear or see you, I have to rely on the illusion of your typed reply.
All of science proceeds, and is dependent, on presuppositions that were born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Thus, as the following article by Robert Koons, professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, states, “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 is simply impossible to ‘do science’ without Judeo-Christian presuppositions.
And what are those main Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay behind the founding, and behind the continued success, of modern science?
Well as the preceding article stated, those main presuppositions are the “rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it,,”
And as the following article also states, “a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image”
And as the following article also states, “science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.”
And as Stephen Meyer also explained in his new book, ‘The Return of the God Hypothesis”, “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),
The main point I’m trying to make clear is that ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science is simply impossible without those basic Theistic presuppositions.
Yet, Methodological Naturalism in general, and Darwinian Evolution in particular, undermine both the presupposition that the universe should be rational and also undermines the presupposition that the human mind should be rational.
A shining example of how Methodological Naturalism undermines our confidence that the universe is rational is the Boltzmann brain paradox that arises via the multiverse. As Dr. Bruce Gordon explains, “embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.”
Also see:
And as bad as that is for atheists, the failure of atheists to be able to explain exactly why the human mind is rational, makes their failure to explain why the universe is rational look mild by comparison.
Simply put, everything dissolves into a world of illusion and fantasy for the Darwinian atheist
For instance of the catastrophic epistemological failure that is inherent in the Atheist’s Darwinian worldview, a shining example of this is the failure of Atheistic naturalists, (i.e. Darwinists) to be able to give an adequate explanation for why any beliefs that we may have about reality might be true.
In fact, the Darwinian naturalist, because of his presuppositions, is forced to believe that any beliefs that he may have about reality are unreliable, That is to say he is forced to believe that any beliefs that he may have about reality may very well be illusory and not true, and that he has no way to differentiate which ones are which.
Don’t take my word for it.,,, From the horses’s mouths,,,
The belief that any beliefs we may have about reality may be illusory, and that we have no way to differentiate between the two beliefs, simply undercuts the entire scientific enterprise itself.
As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”
Atheism, (directly contrary to what is taught in American Universities today, and since it undermines both the rationality of the universe and the rationality of our own minds), simply cannot provide a coherent foundation for science. And that failure, by default, proves the existence of God.
As Greg Bahnsen explained in his 1985 debate with Gordon Stein, “When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,”
Where Darwinian evolution, (and/or methodological naturalism), goes off the rails, theologically speaking, (besides undermining our belief that the universe and our minds are rational), is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it.
In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their science, it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science. (In fact, Darwin said that he found mathematics to be quote-unquote ‘repugnant’)
In fact, Charles Darwin’s book itself, the Origin of Species, instead of being filled with experimentation and mathematics, is replete with bad liberal theology.
Moreover, much like the liberal clergy of today support Darwin’s unscientific theory, the liberal ‘unscientific’ Anglican clergy of Darwin’s day were also very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against Darwin’s theory:
To this day, Darwinists are still very much dependent of bad liberal theology, instead of any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.
That Darwinists would still today be vitally dependent on a faulty theological foundation based in bad liberal theology, in order to try to give force to their arguments, is, contrary to what Darwinists may believe, actually another compelling argument that drives my point home that basic Theistic presuppositions are necessary for us to even be able to coherently practice science in the first place.
Darwinists, with their vital dependence on bad liberal theology in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution, (instead of any compelling evidence), are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
Verse:
To say you have proof of God, that just means you are fact obsessed, and incapable to deal with subjective opinions, same as atheists.
Subjective opinion is the weak point of atheists. Only creationism validates subjective opinion like about beauty.
Atheists are totally clueless about subjective opinions, which is why in politics, as in their personal life, they systematically produce terrible personal opinions.
Atheists pay no dedicated attention to subjective issues.
Here is a better link to the Greg Bahnsen debate of 1985
Although I agree with Dr. Egnor’s overall point about the arguments for God being scientific in that they are inductive arguments that begin with evidence and then proceeds by a logical chain to the most reasonable conclusion, I have a minor quibble with Dr. Egnor’s claim that Charles Darwin himself used inductive reasoning.
Contrary to Dr. Egnor’s claim that Charles Darwin himself used inductive reasoning, the fact of the matter is that Charles Darwin himself was called out, by his peers, for failing to use the inductive methodology.
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.’.
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?”
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, 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.”
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.”
In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method!
And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no compelling experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true, (or even feasible for that matter),
As Dr Richard Nelson 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.”
Thus in conclusion, and in regards to what type of reasoning lies behind Darwin’s theory, and contrary to what Dr. Egnor claimed, the type of reasoning that Darwin used, (and Darwinists continue to use to this day), is far more in line with the ‘unscientific’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks than it is line with the inductive reasoning as it was first set forth by Francis Bacon (i.e. the father of the scientific method).
That is to say that Darwinists, (and Naturalists in general), dogmatically reason in a top down fashion from their unquestioned primary premise of naturalism, (i.e. methodological naturalism), and the scientific evidence itself is simply never allowed to honestly question whether their primary premise of naturalism is true or not.
Anyone who has debated Atheistic Naturalists for any length of time knows that this dogmatic commitment to naturalism by Atheists is true.
Scientific evidence is simply never given a fair hearing by Naturalists no matter how damning it may be to their primary premise of naturalism.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Lewontin himself honestly admitted as much.
Supplemental note:
Verse:
As Bob O’H pointed out, the existence of black holes, like the existence of neutrinos was not even suspected until science had developed theories which led to the novel predictions that such phenomena existed. Without an observed discrepancy between the prediction of theory and experimental results we would not know that around 65 billion neutrinos are passing through every square centimeter of our bodies every second. That is one of the great achievements of human science and why well-established theories are so highly-prized by scientists.
Many scientists were and are Christians. Many were and are of other faiths or no faith at all. You can argue that Christian beliefs contributed to the development of science but for Christians to deny that those of other cultures also contributed is a breach of their own Ninth Commandment.
Just to emphasize again, as Bob O’H pointed out, the best theories in science lead to novel predictions of things that not only had we not observed before but that whose existence we would not even have suspected before. Egnor notwithstanding, thousands of years of Christian apologetics have not led to a single new way of observing phenomena that could only be attributed to the Christian God.
Christians observe the phenomenon of materialist-atheists using theistic terminology to attempt to describe their own atheistic worldview. A Christian prediction is that atheists will never be able to describe their own belief without using terms denoting intentionality (and therefore contradict themselves).
So far, that’s been an accurate prediction.
Thank you, BornAgain!!! Excellent comments.
Seversky states,
Interesting claim which, as usual, does not hold up for the atheist.
Imposing materialistic answers onto the scientific method beforehand, i.e. methodological naturalism, is especially problematic in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic/naturalistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, “Did God create the universe and us or did blind material/natural processes create the universe and us?” When we realize that this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation.
When looking at the evidence from modern science in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism/naturalism, miss.
This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of science evidence we will find.
These contradictory predictions, and the evidence found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true.
Here are a few comparisons:
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the correct solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’
Bornagain77/19
Seriously, this again? Okay, I can cut and paste too:
If something< exists then, since you cannot get something from nothing, something must always have existed.
The current age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.8 bn years. The Big Bang theory is the most widely-accepted theory of the origins of our Universe although there appears to be data which are calling it into question.
Neither theism nor deism alone predict only the Christian creator God. There are many theistic and deistic faiths that incorporate creation/origins stories.
Some Christian scholars have estimated the Universe to be just a few thousand years old based on passages from the Bible. That differs hugely from the current scientific estimate.
Theism covers a number of faiths and denominations. Not all of them hold that God is sustaining the entire universe from second-to-second.
Non-locality in quantum mechanics (a nat/mat theory) does not necessarily imply that the universe is dependent on something outside itself for continued existence. It is one possible interpretation but it may also be that they are evidence of an additional dimension to physical reality, something we do not observe in our everyday experience yet still part of the natural order.
It also implies that our everyday perceptions are but a partial representation of what is actually out there.
Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate. A living brain exhibits consciousness, a dead brain does not. The signs of consciousness that were once exhibited by a dead brain have so far proven to be unrecoverable in all cases.
Researchers are still arguing over how to understand the “observer effect” in quantum physics. It certainly doesn’t support the simplistic notion that consciousness is what holds reality together.
It doesn’t answer the obvious question which is that, if nothing exists until it is being observed, what is being observed in the first place?
It also doesn’t answer the next question which is why we all apparently observe the same thing when we look. If there are an infinite number of possible observations then when one person sees a red car why doesn’t another person see a brown cow?
Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity are nat/mat theories.
None of the theistic faiths that I’m aware of make specific predictions about the rate at which time passes.
Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” refers to God’s perception of time.
2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” concerns salvation not time.
And neither make any prediction concerning the speed of light.
Observations and calculations have shown that, if certain fundamental physical (nat/mat) constants varied from their observed values by even a small amount, the universe in which we live could not exist. That does not necessarily mean this Universe was designed specifically for us.
We live in a thin film of atmosphere on the surface of a planet that is only partially shielded against threats from outside. Even within that shielding there are many things that are dangerous or lethal for human life. Outside that protection the vast majority of this universe is unremittingly hostile to organic life such as ourselves. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of faith from those observations to the absurd conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.
Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably. Our planet could be unique, not just “extremely unique” (is that like being ‘a bit pregnant’) in the sense that there is no other exactly like it that we know of.
On the other hand, astronomers are finding plentiful evidence of planets around nearby stars so it’s certainly possible that there are other planets similar to Earth which bear life.
Any theistic prediction that the Earth is unique as a home for life is in serious danger of being proved wrong.
Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.
One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith.
The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god.
The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary considerably. The 13-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion (a rather slow “explosion”) was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.
Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so transitional fossils have already been found.
Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.
It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel” (now including COVID-19). If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now.
Imago dei is a Christian not just a theistic concept and its meaning is conveniently vague. Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc? Does it mean we resemble Him psychologically so He is also capable of rage, jealousy, vindictiveness? That, at least, would be consistent with some of His behavior as described in the Bible.
“Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.
Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. How else do you explain that the humble onion has a much larger genome than that of human beings? The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case and using a far too elastic understanding of “function”.
Theism said nothing at all about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’
More mutations are going to be detrimental rather than beneficial if for no other reason than that there are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right.
With the advent of neutral theory, the majority of mutations are held to be neutral or nearly so, a much smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are positively beneficial. But whether a mutation is detrimental or beneficial depends on the environmental circumstances in which it occurs. Furthermore, detrimental mutations will tend to be the ones filtered out by evolution leaving the beneficial to proliferate.
As noted before, theism made no predictions whatsoever concerning the existence of DNA, let alone the relative frequencies of neutral, detrimental or beneficial mutations.
Nat/mat argues that there is no way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’, no way to derive moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality. So they can only be subjective, and that includes any that come from a deity.
Theistic faiths simply argue that the morality dispensed by their chosen deity overrides all others. That doesn’t make it objective, just an illegitimate attempt to stake out a claim to the moral high ground.
The claim that morality is somehow embedded in our genes or in the fabric of the universe is an entirely unsubstantiated claim.
As noted above, quantum theory is a nat/mat theory. It just deals with nat/mat reality on the very smallest scales. It lends no support to the concept of a transcendent soul which at best is poorly-defined and at worst is incoherent.
Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode:
The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot. What has changed profoundly is our understanding of the nature of matter right down to the quantum scale. And quantum theory and the phenomena it describes do not appear in any theology. It is entirely a product of naturalistic science. If we had relied on religion to guide us in these matters we would still be entirely ignorant about the quantum domain.
Seversky, LOL, you do realize that I made a detailed defense of all your supposed refutations do you not?
Detailed defense of all 16 predictions:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15i87oT7IkCI0W0Hxg5mZ_8FP23MG_GTFrR0zvgKH9zU/edit
You had squat when you first wrote your refutations, and you got less than squat now that I have made a detailed defense.! 🙂
I agree and that is a helpful corrective to Christians (like myself). The 9th commandment enjoins us to be respectful towards our neighbor and this is not limited to fellow Christians, but to all people. We have to avoid the sin of envy – seeing all people as children of God (in the natural sense) and we shouldn’t scorn their achievements, but instead, appreciate them. I see all the good works of humanity as part of the glory of God, manifested on earth. It’s more difficult to see it that way at times, because of the corruption of people or their errors, but it’s my Christian belief that God is the “light which enlightens every person who comes into the world”.
ET @ 7 –
But we don’t just look through a microscope to see what’s going on at the molecular level. From Ayearningforpublius’ link: “The walking molecules (Dynein and Kinesin) were modelled on multiple forms of data. The structures are an assembly of multiple PDB models and the way they move has been a very active area of research for a couple of decades.”
So, no, we don’t just look down a microscope.
Ayearningforpublius –
No, you don’t have to, and I don’t either. But if Dr. Egnor is going to dismiss black holes because we don’t observe them, then he’ll have to dismiss most molecular and cell biology for the same reason.
Further to Seversky’s claim that “the best theories in science lead to novel predictions of things that not only had we not observed before but that whose existence we would not even have suspected before.”
But to scientifically ‘predict’ anything about the future takes an immaterial mind that can anticipate what will happen in the future given the present set of conditions and given what has happened previously in the past.
Yet Material particles do anticipate the future, nor are they aware of their present condition, nor are they aware of what their state was in the past.
In short, making accurate prediction about the future presupposes an immaterial mind and, more specifically, requires teleology, (i.e. goal directed purpose). Yet, besides denying the existence of the immaterial mind, teleology of any sort is simply denied by Darwinists
In fact teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose, of any kind is antithetical to the randomness postulate that is central to Darwin’s theory. And Randomness itself inherently denies that it is possible to accurately predict the future given an initial set of conditions.
As Stephen Jay Gould once noted, evolution is inherently unpredictable. In fact, in his tape of life metaphor, Gould stated,
Which is to say, Darwin’s theory, because of its randomness postulate, explicitly denies that it is possible to accurately predict the future.
Hence, according to Seversky’s definition of what constitutes a good scientific theory, (i.e. “the best theories in science lead to novel predictions”), Darwin’s theory, due to its randomness postulate, inherently lacks predictive power about the future and is therefore, on Seversky’s definition of a good scientific theory, not to be considered a good scientific theory.
Of related note:
Also of related interest:
also of note:
So much for Seversky’s belief that Darwin’s theory is a good scientific theory,
From an information perspective an object does have some mathematical past, present, and future belonging to it, the future which it anticipates.
Mathematical equations, (which are inherently immaterial in their foundational nature), do not invent nor interpret themselves. It takes an immaterial mind, via their free will, to construct immaterial mathematical equations, and to subsequently interpret them. (Free will and the immaterial mind are both verboten under Darwinian presuppositions).
Moreover, the amazing predictive power of the mathematical equations in physics reveals teleology which is, again, due to the randomness postulate, verboten under Darwinian presuppositions. (and which also explains why no one has ever been able to construct or realistic mathematical model of Darwinian evolution, see Robert Marks’s link at bottom of post).
Both Einstein and Wigner regarded the applicability of mathematics to the natural world to be a quote-unquote ‘miracle’. And Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in his process of calling it a miracle.
Mathematics is not properly categorized as immaterial. The fundamental distinction is between what is subjective and what is objective. Mathematics falls into the objective category, and therefore material category. We can see the math 1+1=2.
And then according to a rigorous information perspective, objects consist of the laws of nature, and compute their own next state. As laws unto themselves the objects then exhibit freedom.
And the subjective spirit decides in this freedom.
See, that is efficient definition of terms. The spiritual and subjective that makes the choice, and the material and objective that is chosen.
Mohammadnursyamsu claims,
Move over Plato and Augustine, you have been usurped by Mohammadnursyamsu.
Also of note:
There are actual photos of a bacterial flagellum, Bob. Mark Perkah uses those as alleged evidence against ID. But his explanation is muddled and misguided.
ET – the bacterial flagellum is a lot bigger than a single molecule like dynein and kinesin. But nice try.
Bob, Please do explain the flagellum via unguided Darwinian processes.
Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body
http://www.skeptic.com/eskepti.....gure03.jpg
Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors – 2011
Excerpt: – Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection.
image:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/f3/
Diverse high-torque bacterial flagellar motors assemble wider stator rings using a conserved protein scaffold – March 2016
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/13/E1917
Image
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/13/E1917/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
The Flagellar Filament Cap: Up close micro-photograph and animations of cap – Jonathan M. – August 2013
Excerpt: We are so used to thinking about biological machines at a macroscopic level that it is all too easy to overlook the molecular structure of their individual components. The closer we inspect biochemical systems, such as flagella, the more the elegant design — as well as the magnitude of the challenge to Darwinism — becomes apparent.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75101.html
Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
https://youtu.be/fFq_MGf3sbk
“I remember the first time I looked in a biochemistry textbook and I saw a drawing of something called a bacterial flagellum, with all of its parts in all of its glory. It had a propeller. It had a hook region and the drive shaft and the motor. So I looked at that and said, “That’s an outboard motor. That’s designed. That’s no chance assemblage of parts.”
Michael Behe – Irreducible Complexity – video – 15:43 minute mark
https://youtu.be/VekUf325SHM?t=943
Amazing Flagellum – Scott Minnich & Stephen Meyer – 2016 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw
ET: So it has to be able to handle the God hypothesis if that is how it really happened.
How do you test that hypothesis in the lab?
JVL asks: “How do you test that (God) hypothesis in the lab?”
Hmmm, interesting question, tell you what, you show me a laboratory, and/or a scientific instrument, that was not itself intelligently designed and then I will tell you. 🙂
it is not as if the presuppositions of Intelligent Design, that are necessary for even ‘doing science’ in the first place, are off somewhere hiding in a corner.
Every nook and cranny of science is literally crammed to the gills with the presuppositions of Intelligent Design.,,, Science is certainly NOT based on the presuppositions of methodological naturalism and/or atheism.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-heres-why-an-argument-for-gods-existence-is-a-scientific-argument/#comment-728164
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature.
Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Examples of scientific instruments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_instrument#Examples_of_scientific_instruments
Verses and Music:
Bob O’H, since you guys are talking about accurately seeing stuff, and seeing that you believe that your visual perception is the result of unguided Darwinian processes, can you please tell me exactly how you know for certain that all your perceptions of reality are not illusory?
Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, via extensive analysis of the mathematics of population genetics, has proven that, if Darwinian evolution is assumed as being true, then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory
Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, in fact it is the first step in the scientific method,
Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, then the fact that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL our perceptions of reality would be illusory ends up undermining the scientific method itself.
Which is just one more proof, out of many, that Darwinian evolution is certainly NOT a science. In fact, as the above example proves, It is downright anti-science!
Yes I am the best. Because the creationist conceptual scheme is the best.
Your references are just babbling, meaning they don’t define terms. I present efficiently defined terms in a coherent conceptual scheme.
It is very obviously efficient, to have one word to denote the substance of all what is objective, the word is material. And one word to denote the substance of all what is a subjective, the words is spiritual.
And that you talk about mathematics as immaterial, and kind of godlike, it is simply that you want to make what is subjective, into something objective. Because 99 percent of philosophy is about improperly making what is subjective, into something objective. The reason those philosophies are popular, is because the faults in it are psychologically appealing. They are popular because of their faults.
Mathematics is simply a factual issue. There are 3 cows in the meadow, it is just factual.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective
Mathematics, and also fantasy, they are both creations, and therefore objective, and material.
Whatever Mohammadnursyamsu,
If your ‘efficiently defined terms’ make you define that which is clearly immaterial, i.e. mathematics, as being material, then you clearly should have taken a left turn at Albuquerque.
Bugs Bunny – “Should Have Turned Left At Albuquerque”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSMZnWIJRCg
Of note: This is not to say that mathematics, which is immaterial, cannot have ‘top down’ causal effects on that which is material, (indeed modern technology depends on that ‘top down’ causal effect), It is just to say that mathematics is immaterial in its foundational essence.
“What is mathematics about”
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.....about.html
“Scholastic realism” is a middle ground between Plato and Aristotle which holds that the origin and existence of mathematics is found “in the mind of God”. It’s not a physical entity.