At Mind Matters News: 5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe

_{News
September 28, 2021

Atheism, Big Bang, Intelligent Design, theism

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Big Bang
Intelligent Design
theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science:

At this point in the “Does God exist?” debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that theaw propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnor’s turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinas’s First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God).
No matter, they agreed to keep talking. The conversation continues to be somewhat rambunctious, thus has been condensed for print:
News, “5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe” at Mind Matters News

Michael Egnor: Well, again, singularities are supernatural. They are not natural.

Matt Dillahunty: I would argue that the singularity as described is natural. It is the entirety of the natural universe. [00:57:00]

Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?

Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-

Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …

[Things became quite heated at this point.]

Matt Dillahunty: [00:58:00] I’ve tried to answer it, every time I open my … Say one more [bleep]…

Next: Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s Egnor’s accusation. Stay tuned.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.

4. Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

You may also wish to read:

Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates “incredibly valuable,” he is — despite much urging — making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about God’s existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. That’s partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor)

Comments

Viola: Ram, that is a real good example of a question that is totally not focused on the specific point I posted about, and am interested in discussing. OK. But, Viola, you're not the only chicken in the coop here. It's not all about you. You're only 1/2 of any given exchange. If you're not interested in disclosing your worldview or motives or anything else, that's OK, I understand. But it does sort of limit real communication. Especially if Understanding is part of the communcation. What are you looking for here? You are free to ignore that question, of course. Blessings.ram_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, at #52 Silver Asiatic is very much on point wrt to your question. Why is it that you ignore this post, and keep your focus on participants who "dare" to go beyond the territory you outlined?Origenes on vacation_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Ram, that is a real good example of a question that is totally not focused on the specific point I posted about, and am interested in discussing.Viola Lee_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, do you expect your consciousness to survive after death or no? It's an imporant question because it informs readers about what drives your worldview. Wouldn't you agree it's a fundamental question? Thanksram_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Supposed to have written "And I’m not sure why you think I am “unsettled by this” whatever “this” you are referring to.Viola Lee_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

re 51, to AD. My post at 32 was not about God. It was about a critique of a particular common argument about the existence of genetics. And the reasons I quit posting here were much more about the nature and quality of the conversation, not about the content. And I'm sure why you think I am "unsettled by this" whatever "this" you are referring to. In this case, I was "unsettled" by what I consider a weak, flawed argument, and approved of Racette's articulation of the issue. However, as is common here, most of the responses have gone far beyond the specific issue that I was interested in. As I alluded to above, one of the hallmarks of constructive discussion is for the participant to stay focused on the issue at hand and on the specific points being made, and that is not usually what happens here.Viola Lee_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Darwin was wrong. Not really a live issue anymore. QM and Einstein can't agree. Human reason is obviously limited. Fascinating world we live in, eh? Nobody knows what's going on here. Relax, enjoy life, and love your neighbor as yourself. Hang all the law and the prophets on that. Don't worry. You'll be okay.ram_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Viola: "but wander all over the place. " Humans are like that. Welcome to earth. ;)ram_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Racette says:
Meyer would be more consistent if he argued that, since every instance of encoded information of which we’re aware is actually man-made, DNA must also be man-made.
Plants produce information - exhibiting intelligence. Insects produce information - exhibiting intelligence. Non-human mammals produce encoded information - exhibiting intelligence. This is a progression of various sources of the same thing - namely intelligence. Even among humans, we notice a difference between the intelligence of children, of teenagers and adults - and among adults, a growth of intelligence from lesser to greater and to a maximal level. Is it difficult to project the existence of an even greater level of intelligence beyond-human? Racette is unaware of this, saying that all encoded information is man-made - so supposedly, SETI should think that any complex, non-random signals they may receive in outer space is the product of human beings living out there somewhere. He's not being reasonable. Racette also says this:
Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding his argument in some way which will be immediately evident when it’s explained to me.
I hope someone will take the time to explain it to him.Silver Asiatic_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

I’m curious. You devoted a ton of study to it, and you participated to a great extent with those like me, here. What made you decide it wasn’t worth your time? Evidently no one changed your mind. Have you ever thought deeply about why that is? Two questions for you: 1. Why am I so unsettled by this? 2. What would it mean for me if the opposite view is true?AnimatedDust_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

The certainty that so many here have, such as you, that this is a religious issue involving God is one of the reasons why. I have participated in hours and hours of discussion on this subject over the years, and quite a few months ago decided that any further discussion at this site was not worth my time. I posted yesterday for the reason I mentioned in the third paragraph of post #32.Viola Lee_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Viola, I would have to ask you to reflect deeply on why you are withdrawing from the debate. You should examine why you would rather cling to what your preferences dictate as your reality, and leave, over surrendering to the reality that your position is wrong. You won't be able to withdraw after you've taken your last breath on earth. And reality will be what it is. The loving embrace of the most magnificent, perfect intellect in the universe (and outside of it), who knew you long before you were ever born, for he created you, with a perfect, eternal love, or his granting of your long held earthly wish. Choose wisdom over folly.AnimatedDust_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Racette's argument reminds me of Murray's article (cannot find it) about that space exploration team which discovered an abandoned battleship at some unknown far away planet. Despite the presence of computers and all sorts of intricate machinery on the abandoned ship, the darwinians on the exploration team were incapable of inferring intelligent design as the cause for the battleship.Origenes on vacation_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
So far no one has even shown signs of understanding Racette’s critique, much less addressing it.
That is your opinion and it's wrong. Racette doesn't show any signs of understanding science, logic or reasoning.ET_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

To undermine Meyer’s hypothesis all one has to do is show that the product could be done by natural processes.
Please don't wake up the dreamers(darwinists, naturalists &co.) from the only dream are allowed to dream(even nobody saw the magic of life appeared by chance they keep firmly their belief). They have the pretensions to respect their fallacies as truth. They are in error and they are the ones that get upset: I'm going to take my ball and go home!Hanks_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Jerry succinctly states, "Racette is assuming there is no other intelligence but that is begging the question and a logical fallacy. In other words Racette presented a fallacious critique." Bingo! Very nicely put and sweetly summarized! Moreover, Racette, unwittingly or not, (besides assuming there is no other intelligence), is also assuming that some unknown natural process in the past must have been capable of producing (functional digital) information since no presently acting natural process has ever been shown to be capable of producing (functional digital) information. In 41 VL complained that my post at 40 "wander(ed) all over the place". But looking over my post in 40, I realized that all the falsifications of Darwin's theory that I listed in post 40 actually in fact do, in one way or the other, (and more or less), have to do directly with the fact that Darwin's theory is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information, (as well as being grossly inadequate in explaining the origin of immaterial minds that produce immaterial information). In VL falsely claiming that my post at 40 "wander(ed) all over the place", my guess is that VL would have much preferred Racette's critique to stay focused solely on ID and did not want Darwin's theory dragged into the conversation. But alas, if Darwin's theory is not subject to the same exact critique that Racette, (and VL), are trying to level against ID then that is hardly a fair critique of ID now is it?
Provers 20:10 Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
bornagain77_{October 1, 2021
October
10
Oct
1
01
2021
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Of all the known products in the universe, a small subset exhibit certain characteristics, containing functional information. All instances of these products have been constructed by humans except one because it existed prior to humans. None of the products with these characteristics are the result of known natural processes. This product that existed before humans existed has these same characteristics but it is not know how this product originated. Because there is no known natural process that is capable of producing this product, it is hypothesized that an unknown process which is not a natural process has caused this product to exist. We call this unknown process intelligence. We have no knowledge of any of the specific characteristics of this process, but hypothesize it is similar to humans in its ability to create functional information.jerry_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

So far no one has even shown signs of understanding Racette’s critique, much less addressing it. Carry on.
I didn’t see a coherent critique and asked what it was. What I got back was read it again. I still don’t see a coherent critique. Racette put forward a flawed argument and then claimed Meyer’s argument was circular when it is not. At the moment there is only one intelligence known to exist, namely humans. So if something which is similar appears prior to human’s existence Racette is saying arbitraryly that it cannot be due to an intelligence because there is no other intelligence that has existed. Racette is assuming there is no other intelligence but that is begging the question and a logical fallacy. In other words Racette presented a fallacious critique. Meyer is hypothesizing that there must have been another intelligence because natural processes do not have the capability to generate this type of product but intelligence does. Since it existed it must have been generated by some intelligence. To undermine Meyer’s hypothesis all one has to do is show that the product could be done by natural processes. But coherent arguments have been made that this impossible. Thus, giving credence to Meyer’s conclusion. It is anything but circular.jerry_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

VL, are you familiar with the logic of abduction? In this form of inductive reasoning, modern sense, one argues per evidentiary support not deductive demonstration. It is and has long been commonly used in science for hypothesis generation and for inference to the best current explanation across competing candidate causes etc. This is not question-begging and it is hyperskeptical to refrain from a best current, known causally adequate explanation through suggesting an utterly unknown X which has no actual empirical support. It smacks of hostility to the best candidate. Here, digital, algorithmic string based codes of high complexity. Manifestations of language. Also of goal directed stepwise process. Where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and/or intelligently directed configuration are well established candidates for string sequences. Of these, mechanical necessity causes low contingency thus low information carrying capacity. Blind chance can account for short messages but struggles to reach the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold we are looking at, exhausting solar system or observed cosmos scale atomic resources and time. Only intelligently directed configuration is well known from observation to produce long, complex, meaningful, functional strings such as we see. That confers an epistemic right to infer on tested, reliable sign. KFkairosfocus_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

One of the reasons I quit posting here, and will not continue this discussion much longer, is that most discussions do not stay focused on particular points, but wander all over the place. So far no one has even shown signs of understanding Racette's critique, much less addressing it. Carry on. I take that back a bit: BA's first sentence of 37 did address Recette's argument.Viola Lee_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

VL And exactly how was Charles Darwin arguing from presently acting causes a sufficient argument to establish his theory as plausible? To use your own words against you, "it is not a sufficient argument to establish that." And to repeat, all you have to do to falsify ID and collect yourself a cool 10 million dollars in the process is prove that natural causes are sufficient to explain coded information. Whereas, on the other hand, no one can ever seem to find a rigid falsification criteria for Darwinian evolution so as to demarcate Darwinian evolution from pseudoscience. As Denis Nobel. President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated,
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. 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 grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 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. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 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 sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that 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). 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. 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.” 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 the modern versions of it.” 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’. 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! 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!. 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. 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! Darwinist’s, 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 use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Darwinists, since they refuse to adhere to the criteria of falsification, are simply not even talking about reality with their 'theory'
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Richard Feynman
Darwinian evolution, via its refusal to adhere to the criteria of experimental falsification, is far more realistically classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a hard and testable science. Shoot, we can't even realistically model Darwinian evolution!
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
bornagain77_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

BA writes, "VL, He is missing a key premise of Meyer’s argument, namely “1. Various kinds of natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information." How do we know that? Merely arguing points 1-4 above, as Meyer does, and does in the quote you offered, is not a sufficient argument to establish that.Viola Lee_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Mind-blowing . Biologists and mathematicians don't understand cybernetic systems. Computers (0, 1) binary code DNA -(A,C,T,G) quaternary code Glycome- 60 symbol-system code. Do the math.Hanks_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

VL, He is missing a key premise of Meyer's argument, namely "1. Various kinds of natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule)."
“A God of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as a ‘argument from ignorance’. It is an informal fallacy. Arguments from ignorance have the following form.,,, 1. Cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X 2. Therefore cause B must have produced effect X ,,, but if I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce effect X, then I have committed a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because, just because cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X doesn't mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that that other cause is capable of doing it (i.e. producing the effect in question). That then becomes a God of the gaps argument when you say various natural processes are not sufficient to produce, say, the origin of the first life or the origin of the first animals in the history of life. If I were then to say, “Therefore God did it”, that would be a God of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance. But that is not how we are arguing when we make the case for Intelligent Design because we are adding an additional premise. We are saying that.,,, 1. Various kinds of natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule). 2. We do know of a cause that does produce (functional digital) information. (We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind,,, can create (functional digital) information.),,, ,, so when we infer an Intelligent Agent as having acted in the past based on the digital code stored in the macromolecules of life we are not arguing from our ignorance. We are arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect in the world. (Specifically we are arguing from what we know minds can do, i.e. produce information.) - Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM
Moreover, Stephen Meyer is using the exact same type of scientific reasoning that Charles Darwin himself used to establish his theory as scientifically plausible. Namely, explaining events in the remote past by referring to presently acting causes known to produce the effect in question.
“So I began to wonder if this intuition, this intuitive connection between information and intelligence, could be formulated as a rigorous scientific argument. And that was my big animating question as I left for Grad school. And I began to study the scientific method and methods of reasoning that scientists use when they are investigating these questions about what happened in the remote past. In the distant past. These origins questions. So naturally that led me to Darwin. And I learned that Darwin had a particular method of reasoning that is now called ‘the method of multiple competing hypothesis’ or ‘the method of inference to the best explanation’. And he (Darwin) said in justifying his own theory that he inferred his picture of the history of life as the best explanation and that he would hold it until a better explanation came along. But that raised the question, “Well what makes an explanation best?”,, And I came across the answer to that (question), not only in Darwin’s work where he had a very specific criterion of ‘best explanation’, but also in the work of his scientific mentor, Charles Lyell, the great geologist. And I’ll never forget the day that I was reading this boring Victorian sub-title to a dusty old book, and for me the light bulb just went on. Here’s the book, “Principles of Geology: Being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface by reference to causes now in operation.” And this idea just hit me like a thunderbolt. I remember right where I was. What Lyell was saying was that if you are going to explain an event in the remote past you should not invoke a cause the effects of which we do not know. You should invoke a cause the effects of which we do know. You should invoke a cause that is presently acting, or now operating, which has the power to produce the effect in question.,, The best explanation is (found) by reference to a cause that is known to produce what you are trying to explain.,,,” So when I began to think of the information question in light of the “Darwinian methodology’, the Lyellian principles of uniformitarian reasoning, I realized that, using Darwin’s own method of reasoning, we should come to a very different conclusion,, Why? Because there is something else we know about information, and this was my second epiphany. Information scientist Henry Quastler, early pioneer in applying information science and theoretical analysis to molecular biology, to the genome. Off hand, not meaning to say anything about this question of design in biology, he said “The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Now think of that in light of causes now in operation. In other words, what he is saying is the cause now in operation for the production of information is,, intelligence, mind, conscious activity. So I realized that applying Darwin’s key standard of ‘best explanation’, Lyell’s principle of reasoning, to the information question, to the DNA enigma, there was a powerful rationale supporting the inference to intelligent design. Why? Because we know of only one cause that produces information. I knew from my study of Origin of Life research that chance, necessity, the combination of the two, and all the models that fell under those mutually exhaustive categories, had failed, But there was a cause of which we know is capable of producing information. And that cause is conscious activity, rational deliberation, intelligent design. Is this consistent with our experience? Absolutely.,, (whenever you trace information back to its source),, invariable come to an intelligent cause, not to a mindless, undirected, process. So when we encounter information at the foundation of life, in these information bearing molecules, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, the most logical thing to conclude, based on our knowledge of cause and effect, based on our knowledge of causes now in operation, is that intelligence also played a role in the origin of the first life because life depends of information.” – Stephen Meyer: Charles Darwin’s Methods, Different Conclusion – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqq6JP5gE0E
So, since Stephen Meyer is using the same exact method of scientific reasoning that Darwin himself did, then, in so far as you want to say that Meyer is being circular and/or unscientific in his arguments, then you must also conclude that Darwin himself was also being circular and/or unscientific in his arguments. Also of note, unlike Darwinists who continually ignore any and all falsifying scientific evidence against their theory, ID advocates put their money where their mouth is. Specifically, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for anyone who can falsify Intelligent Design and prove that unguided natural processes can produce coded information.
CHICAGO, Jan. 13, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
Of supplemental note, The main problem for Darwinists in explaining the Origin of Life, (and the main problem for Darwinian evolution in general), is explaining where the (immaterial) information in life came from.,,, Darwinian atheists simply have no clue how inanimate matter can possibly generate (immaterial) information. As Werner Gitt noted, “,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. ”,,,, - August 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-utterly-serious-look-at-origin-of-life-claims/#comment-736150 Also of supplemental note, Christianity just so happened to ‘predict’ that life had an author long before anyone even knew about information in DNA.
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
bornagain77_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee- DNA is basically inert. At best it is just a template for transcribing RNAs and to also make copies of itself. It doesn't do anything without a suite of existing, specific proteins and a coded information processing system. And you can't get there from the imaginary RNA world.ET_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Is it a circular argument to say that Stonehenge was intelligently designed because we know that intelligent agencies can build such things? The argument the genetic code was intelligently designed follows the same rules of reasoning and logic as does the argument that Stonehenge was intelligently designed. Both are based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And in both cases the inference to intelligent design can be falsified just by stepping up and demonstrating that nature can produce such things. 1- We observe the genetic code 2- We have never observed nature producing such systems 3- We don't even know how to test the claim that nature can produce such systems 4- Hitchens said we can dismiss such claims 5- We have observed intelligent agencies producing such systems 6- We know that those agencies could not have invented it 7- So we infer it was some other intelligent agencies who didET_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

The argument being criticized is clearly stated in points 1-4.Viola Lee_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

a critique of one of the fundamental arguments of ID that I have always felt but never articulated so well.
What’s the argument that’s being criticized? I don’t see one. Or at least one that is coherent.jerry_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

I recently read "A Critique of Stephen Meyer’s ‘Return of the God Hypothesis’", by Henry Racette (who I know nothing about), at a website called Richochet, which describes itself as "the leading community on the Internet for civil discussion of the center-right and beyond!" Those of you interested in ID might want to read this: A Critique of Stephen Meyer’s ‘Return of the God Hypothesis’ At one point he clearly describes a critique of one of the fundamental arguments of ID that I have always felt but never articulated so well. I'll let you guys consider this:
Claim: The Genetic Code is Evidence of an Intelligent Designer Put simply, Meyer’s argument here is based on the observation that the genetic code – the encoding of information in the DNA of living things – represents a particular kind of “functional” information storage mechanism that is unlikely to have arisen through purely natural processes. I find this the most unsatisfying of Meyer’s claims. Meyer argues in his book and in his numerous public appearances that, in our consistent and repeated experience, every instance of such functional information storage is the result of a guiding intelligence. It follows, he argues, that the storage of functional information in DNA must also be the product of a guiding intelligence. This seems to be such an obviously poor and illogical argument that I find myself wondering if I am missing something profound. But let’s break it down. 1. We are aware of numerous examples of the encoding of “functional” information in a structured form, from computer programs to grammars to all sorts of artificial symbolic schemes. 2. Our experience with all of these is that they are the product of intelligence. Specifically, they are the product of human intelligence. 3. It is, therefore, our uniform and repeated experience that such encoding is the product of intelligence. 4.But we are also aware of the encoding of “functional” information in a structured form in the DNA that is found in each of our cells. It follows, therefore, that this information too must be the product of intelligence, since it is our universal and repeated experience that all such information is the product of intelligence. But wait. That is – at best – a circular argument. If we include DNA in our initial inventory of “functional” information, then it’s no longer our uniform and repeated experience that such information is the product of intelligence. Rather, it’s our uniform and repeated experience that man-made encoding of information is man-made. That says nothing about not-man-made encoding of information. (On the other hand, it does seem to me that Meyer would be more consistent if he argued that, since every instance of encoded information of which we’re aware is actually man-made, DNA must also be man-made. But that would be an even more absurd argument.) Instances of functional information storage in DNA both predate and outnumber every form which we can trace to an intelligent source – that is, every form which was created by man. Our actual experience is that every cell in every organism contains a vast amount of structured, functional information for which we can identify no creating intelligence. There is no basis, therefore, for his oft-repeated claim that, in our consistent experience, such storage is an artifact of intelligence, and the fact that he continues to repeat the claim strikes me as peculiar.
Viola Lee_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

I'm about 1/3 into Meyer's book (reading slowly and taking notes) - there's no promotion of theism thus far at all - I don't anticipate anything close until maybe the last chapter. CD wrote:
Deism acknowledges that there is a maker of the universe. What label you put on this entity is idiosyncratic. I prefer Thomas Jefferson’s reference in the DOI: Nature’s God. This is also consistent with the God of Spinoza and Einstein.
Yes - this is classic Deism where the grand scope of nature is evidence for the existence of Nature's God. This is exactly what ID proposes - it's fully compatible with intelligent design theory.
Whether Deism is consistent with “intelligent design” is, at least to me, neither here nor there. The Intelligent Design movement ...
Intelligent Design is something different than "The Intelligent Design movement". The former is what we discuss here - and it finds support among deists, polytheists, classical theists, immaterialists and even some atheists. The latter is irrelevant and I would say does not even exist. It's like saying "The Deist Movement" or "The Atheist Movement". Intelligent Design is a proposal. A "movement" is some kind of organized program. Just speaking for myself, I'm not part of an intelligent design movement - but I promote the theory of intelligent design.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next