“Mirror” Needs to Hold One Up To His Side

_{Barry Arrington

October 13, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

A commenter who goes by “Mirrortothesun” writes:

Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. They construct arguments around that wish. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas.

Perhaps Mirror has never read evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin’s famous “divine foot” screed. Here it is:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Mirror accuses ID proponents of being committed to an a priori assumption and interpreting all data in the context of that assumption. Perhaps that is the case with some ID proponents. Personally, I am open to Darwinism. Indeed, I would love to be a Darwinist. It would make my life so much easier if I could go along with the herd instead of constantly swimming upstream. Alas, I cannot handle the necessary faith commitments.

Here is the point of my post. Mirror’s comment is laden with unintended irony; for he seems to be blissfully unaware of the close-minded dogmatism of many Darwinists. Only those bad ID types have a priori assumptions. Darwinists bravely follow the evidence wherever it leads. His naivety would be amusing if it were not so common . . . and so dangerous.

Comments

Mirrortothesun, would you be so kind as to tell us your own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, or would you rather keep that a secret? From my experiences, which, admittedly, are limited to various online discussions, there's a strong correlation between ardent Darwin defense and atheism. Go to YouTube, search for pro-Darwin and/or anti-I.D. videos, and it's a near guarantee that you'll be hit head-on with militant-atheist-after-militant-atheist, with friends lists full of militant atheists. The same holds true for any Who are the most well-known Darwin defenders? Richard Dawkins, ~~Eugenics~~ Eugenie Scott, P.Z. Meyers, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, Larry Moron. Their worldviews? Atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, and atheist, in that order. ;) Hmm... It's plainly obvious that to many?and likely most?atheists, Darwin's argument-from-ignorance, when coupled with a design-free origin of life, acts as a creation myth. I strongly suspect this is what motivates them to defend it so vigorously, and to attack I.D. so dishonestly ("creationism!") and unscientifically ("God wouldn't have done it that way!"). Very few, if any, will be honest enough to admit it. With all of this said, I would never use the fact that, to many, Darwinism is clearly motivated by atheistic convictions as an argument for it being false, nor have I ever seen an I.D. proponent use said argument. Clearly such a conclusion does not follow. Yet, curiously, I routinely see designophobes trying to use "religious motivation" as an argument for I.D. being false, including by UD's newest atheist-in-a-cheap-tuxedo troll, Mirrortothesun. What gives?Jammer_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Does this mean that you are now willing to identify which ID arguments are grounded in wishful thinking or should I wait a bit longer?StephenB_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, in our previous conversation about recorded information, we were using a music box as a prop, and you stated: "The melody that emerges can of course be explained simply “in terms of natural forces”." To which I responded: "The melody is explicable by the natural forces at work in the material of the music box, Dr Liddle? Or is that melody only explicable by natural forces working elsewhere on the material that makes up the music box? Do you by chance have an answer for this specific question?Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I noticed you ignored my question. Are you running away from it? I'd be more concerned with documenting Moses return. That would be a far greater miracle than the parting of the Red Sea. Now my question rephrased: Would the arrival of a race of aliens who made the claim that they created all of biology on Earth oblige the religous to give up the notion that man was created in the image of God?Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Mirrortothesun: This is the second time I have asked you to provide an example (example = single concrete instance) of an ID argument that is grounded in a wish and why you think that is the case. Do I need to provide a few the ID arguments for you so that you can pick one? Or are you familiar enough with even one of them to identify it and support your claim?StephenB_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I was obviously referring to the main entries to the blog, not to every single comment posted by every single poster, as one could infer in two seconds based on the fact that I am one of said posters. Regardless, I have seen some of your posts in the past. You are religiously motivated and you do have fish to fry. While I certainly can't prove it, your claim that you decided to convert to religion based on your philosophical analysis that materialism is inadequate certainly rings false, since materialism's inadequacy has nothing to do with the truth of your Christian religious beliefs. If your claim is indeed true, then you did so on logically fallacious grounds.Mirrortothesun_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Okay, substantive. Your comment that was every post here is 'dripping' with religious motivation. Here is one of my recent post: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-and-freethinking/comment-page-2/#comment-401213 Please point to the religious motivation in this posting. Since you do not know me, this should be an intersting exercise.Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

The sack? Classy. As far as defending what I've said: well, I am not going to hang over my keyboard all day waiting for some religious apologist to google up a quote mine to "refute me," but I am willing to respond if someone has something substantive to say.Mirrortothesun_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Hi Mirrortothesun The quote-mine won't refute anything, all it does is point out the pot-kettle-black nature of your alleagtion. For those who question the reliability of the quotation here is the complete paragraph which is locatd near the end and a link to the entire review of Sagan's book by Lewontin.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm I can't speak for the other posters on this site, but in my own case my beliefs did not originate from religious motivation, the religious belief came after I realized the inadequacy of materialism (and please note the distinction, materialism is not science, and science is not materialism). I often think I would be far more comfortable if I could go back to being a self-satisfied atheist but the evidence won't permit me to do so - at least it won't permit me to do so and remain intellectually virtuous.dgosse_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Drips from every post? Mirror, are you going to hit and run, or do you have the sack to actually stick around to defend your accusations?Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Of course it can. What on earth in my post made you think I thought it couldn’t?
Because science can't study miracles, remember?
As for the rest of your post, I actually can’t make head nor tail of it.
lol, sure Dr Liddle, sure.
We seem to be divided by a common language.
It's not language Dr Liddle that divides us. The distinction is far more organic than that. The division comes from me being a mere generalist who has sought to understand the physical qualities of recorded information. You on the other hand are a well-trained specialists who robotically takes recorded information for granted. You do this because to not do so threatens the easy-go-lucky way in which you protect your worldview from scrutiny. Genetic translation exhibits the exact same physico-dynamic qualities and requirements as any other form of recorded information. The semiotic state of genetic information is therefore confirmed by the observable evidence. You just simply do not want to know about it (which is striking for a scientist) so instead you give the board these silly lectures on the scientific method. Which is insulting, given the circumstances.Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

A quote-mine is supposed to refute my point? It just proves it. Yes, the authors of this site are religiously motivated. It drips from every post. They make the barest effort to hide it. Their religious commitment indeed a priori disposes them to motivated reasoning and rationalizations. All the tu quoque "I don't have enough faith to be a Darwinist" deflections in the world won't make this any less obvious.Mirrortothesun_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Yes PaV, science is powerless to explain the inexplicable. That doesn't mean it has no utility though. It provides us with models of enormous predictive power, allowing us to cure diseases and navigate through space. But in the face of totally unpredictable events it is has no power, by definition. Science is all about prediction.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

What? Science can’t research pianos falling from the sky? Have you seen any pianos falling from the sky?
Of course it can. What on earth in my post made you think I thought it couldn't? As for the rest of your post, I actually can't make head nor tail of it. We seem to be divided by a common language.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

further note; materialism simply dissolves into absurdity:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
As well, as should be blatantly obvious to everyone, mathematics cannot be grounded in a materialistic/atheistic worldview;
‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. Granville Sewell - interview with Casey Luskin
i.e. the Materialist/Atheist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such stunning ‘transcendent’ control of the universe,,,
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
of note; 'the Word' is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and Brief Descriptions of Each: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDdnc3E4bmhkZg&hl=en How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things? — Albert Einstein “… if nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” – Pope Benedict XVI "The reason that mathematics is so effective in capturing, expressing, and modeling what we call empirical reality is that there is a ontological correspondence between the two - I would go so far as to say that they are the same thing." Richard Sternberg - Pg. 8 How My Views On Evolution Evolved God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3
(of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.)
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence." Stanford University mathematics professor - Dr. Keith Devlin
music:
Mandisa: Stronger - Official Lyric Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emgv-VRtMEU
bornagain77_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

As to Elizabeth's comment here:
But the entire methodology of science, as Lewontin says, is predicated on the assumption that we can abstract general laws from our observations, and expect that what is true today will also be true tomorrow. That is why the Divine Foot must be omitted from scientific calculations, not because it doesn’t exist (though I don’t think it does) but because even if it does, it is simply not amenable to the methodology of science.
Though much could be written on science studying irregular 'miraculous' events that defy law like regularity, (i.e. Big Bang) and even studying events that defy time and space itself (Quantum Mechanics), The fact that the material universe even obeys a set of invariant transcendent laws in the first place is a 'miracle' in that undermines the atheistic worldview:
Randomness vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetic - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
Moreover for the atheist to say we can ONLY study law-like events is sheer hypocrisy on the atheist part, for the atheist holds that random, non-regular, non-law-like, events are responsible for why the universe, and all life in it, originated in the first place. The atheist's worldview, far from demanding regularity, demands random irregularity at the base of reality. The atheist is just extremely particular, prejudiced, and irrational, as to exactly what, or more precisely WHO, he will allow to be the source for his required random, irregular, non-law-like, events that he himself demands to be at the basis of reality.,,, In fact we find out some very interesting things when we look for the 'randomness' at the atheistic worldview Blackholes- The neo-Darwinians ultimate ‘god of randomness’ which can create all things Being the helpful guy I am, always trying to help atheists out when I get a chance, I’ve been trying to piece together a experiment that would prove once and for all, for everyone to see, that RANDOM variation plus undirected natural selection can produce functional proteins just as atheists adamantly claim (even though no one has ever seen RANDOM processes do this). Now I just about got the RANDOM part of the experiment down for the atheists! I’ve searched for the maximum source of RANDOMNESS that I could find in the universe, (since the 'god of randomness' is who atheists claim for their creator), and I think I’ve found it for them; First:
Thermodynamics – 3.1 Entropy Excerpt: Entropy – A measure of the amount of randomness or disorder in a system. http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/chem30_05/1_energy/energy3_1.htm
Thus, the more entropy a system has the more randomness it will generate for our experiment to find a RANDOM functional protein. And if we ask, ‘what is the maximum source of entropy, i.e. RANDOMNESS, in the universe?’, we find this:
Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” Roger Penrose - How Special Was The Big Bang?
Plus for a added bonus for atheists, being the helpful guy that I am, I found that if we find a really supermassive blackhole we might just start to overcome the homochirality problem, which is a huge problem against finding functional proteins, as well:
Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010 Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos? http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/page3
But of course there is the problem with actually getting the atheists to the super-massive blackholes to actually do the experiments, so that they may try to RANDOMLY generate a functional protein. Not to mention the problem of someone trying to survive being stretched into as a piece of spaghetti, by the extreme warping of space-time, near the blackhole. But what the hey, it is just a little sacrifice for ‘science’ right!?! At least atheists will have a maximum source of randomness to work with in their experiments!!! But there is another problem I probably need to tell atheists about before they pack up and go off to the super-massive blackholes in order to prove to the world that their ‘god of randomness’ can create all things,
“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – Eminent Chemist “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…” Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article
But what the hey, atheists haven't needed any stinking equations to prove their theory so far have they!?!
Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html
I even have a inspirational quote for their future experiment;
GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS: AMERICAN CHEMIST (1875-1946) “I have attempted to give you a glimpse…of what there may be of soul in chemistry. But it may have been in vain. Perchance the chemist is already damned and the guardian the blackest. But if the chemist has lost his soul, he will not have lost his courage and as he descends into the inferno, sees the rows of glowing furnaces and sniffs the homey fumes of brimstone, he will call out-: ‘Asmodeus, hand me a test-tube.’”(1) Gilbert Newton Lewis http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/ci/1992/Lewis.html
further notes:
Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
And a song for their experiment;
Creed – Six Feet http://www.youtube.com/v/aQ9GrZ3CEyY&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1
bornagain77_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

PaV, "Scientists want to deify science. They act like the high priests of a religion. And then scorn the value and importance of religion." I agree that there is such a tendency. Fortunately, not every scientist acts like this. Perhaps those who don't just don't know "how science works" after all.Eugene S_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Liz: At Fatima, Portugal, on October 17, 1917, the ground on which people were standing was soaked by rain. Then the "Miracle of the Sun" occurred, documented by atheist reporters who had come from Lisbon to denigrate the goings-on generated by the prediction of a miracle for that day. When the sun 'stopped hurtling down towards the earth', it went back to its normal spot. Yet the the previously rain-soaked ground was now dry---as well as the clothes of the people who had experienced the 'miracle'. If science can't explain what happened, then of what utility is science? Doesn't this point to the absolute limited utility of science? Scientists want to deify science. They act like the high priests of a religion. And then scorn the value and importance of religion. What "mirrortothesun" has done is what all liberals do: they project. He's simply telling us what he/she does. He/she is not telling us what we do. We've heard about this before. It's the pointing out a splinter in your neighbor's eye when, the whole time, there's a beam in your own.PaV_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Aci, There is no one in ID who has proposed a divine miracle "to explain any phenomena in science". I hope that calms your concerns (after all, you just affirmed that a belief in God is not a impediment in science). But will it, or will you hit it again?Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, This would be far more convincing if you were consistent.
In other words, science cannot proceed except under the assumption that nature is regular. To allow the possibility that nature may not be regular is to open ourselves to belief in “anything”.
Statement: All life originates from a series of chemical reactions that was was unintentionally originated. Scientific response: Let's spend billions of dollars finding out how that happened. Let's not worry about the big "if." We'll just run with it. Statement: All life originates from a series of chemical reactions that was deliberately initiated. Scientific response: ~~Let's spend billions of dollars finding out how who or what might have done that, why and how. Heck, let's at least not rule it out.~~ That would be irregular. We can't base science on the possibility of irregular events. It's not lying because they believe in it.ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Hello again Dr Liddle,
Of course it’s true.
What? Science can't research pianos falling from the sky? Have you seen any pianos falling from the sky? I am having a little fun with it Dr Liddle for the admirable reason that its completely laughable. Let me know who has worked falling pianos, or anything like falling pianos, into their arguments. Of course, falling pianos is code for miracles; so tell me who has worked miracles into their ID books and papers? And what about the proponents on this site? Did I make any such appeal in the descriptions I've gave? I just think this objection is silly. It's substantially disrepresctful as well. It keeps the focus on the people and off the evidence. You might remind everyone there are rules about that as well. Perhaps the people who make these objections in earnest could go off and argue whether or not the Big Bang broke any natural laws. When they're tired of that, then they should come back here.
It’s not that science cannot “tolerate such miracles” but that its methodology is intrinsically unable to research them.
Dr Liddle, in the descriptions I've given you regarding information, was there any point where you needed me to inject a miracle into the conversation in order for you to understand the point I was making - even though you might disagree with that point? If so, then verbalize it.
Science proceeds by looking for regularities and abstracting reliable predictions. By definition, a miracle is excluded from the regularities of the rest of the universe, and no theory of miracles can be devised which could give rise to a testable hypothesis.
The question of whether or not the Universe was created by a Transcendent Being was not settled by the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory was adopted because the physical entailments involved in the theory were supported by the evidence. ID asks for no more, or no less. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to deny that request. ID claims that the information that organized matter into living things was the product of an agent. The existence of that information has very observable, physical entailments. Those physical entailments (which are truly profound in their dynamics) are an exact match to the same physical entailments which result from information being conveyed by semiotic means (by representations and rules). These are clearly 'the physical entailments invloved in the theory' and they are fully supported by the evidence. Materialism has no argument to refute that evidence (none). Therefore, the claim of ID with regard to semiosis is supported by the observable physical evidence of representations, protocols, their effects, and the specific dynamic relationship which exists between the three. Our argument should be about what mechanism can cause that result, because that result is what needs to be explained. Perhaps you can understand why these diversions into sillyland are sometimes seen as a little insulting.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

---"Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. They construct arguments around that wish. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas." Notice that the intellectual dishonesty is coming from the person who wrote that paragraph and will not provide a concrete example of what evidence and which arguments he is talking about. How exactly are they constructed around wishes?StephenB_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

So, does this mean that both Liz and Acipenser are going to run away from my question? Here it is again in another form: If a meteorologist observes Moses parting the waters, is he obliged to say that the event was the result of natural causes?StephenB_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Large scale miracles seem to be camera shy, now that everyone carries a video camera in his pocket. Things like miracles, ESP, UFOs and such seem to be inversely proportional to the means with which they could be studied. They still occur, but always, alas when the cell phone battery is low, or something.Petrushka_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Considering some religious people do consider 'aliens' to have been a part of their origin I don't think much would change. The Fundies would just call them demons or something. - SonfaroSonfaro_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

If God created the universe and scientists found evidence for that creation event would they be obligated to study it??? Oh wait 10 to the -43 seconds, they already do;bornagain77_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

wrong spot. commenting on acipenser. but while i'm here, I would argue that when you use the term, fuca you may very well being doing so so because it has to be true.junkdnaforlife_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

"Miracles are a break in natural law." Than apparently CERN has recorded a possible miracle with the alleged "breaking" of c.junkdnaforlife_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

If aliens arrived on Earth and claimed that they are responsible for everything biological on the planet would religous people be obligated to conclude that God did not make man in His image?Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

"They don’t, just exactly as Lewontin himself says." Do you have a link to support your claim that Lewontin approved the selected quoting? As I recall he stated quite the opposite. "The first of the final two sentences is entirely incoherent with regard to the recorded history of science. If you doubt this then you can address the actual recorded history regarding the theistic beliefs among the fathers of the scientific enterprise. You can explain how having such beliefs has been shown to be detrimental to the institution of science." Holding religious beliefs do not prevent anyone from doing science. I should know I work with many religious people. One common thing throughout history is that a Divine foot (or a demon's) has never been used to explain any phenomena in science. Newton may have believed angels pushed the planets around but he left those thoughts out of his reporting of the data and conclusions. Miracles are a break in natural law. People alleged to have flown around buildings in front of hundreds is not explained in any way by natural laws....do you know of a natural law that would permit people to fly unaided by any mechanical means? I don't. Having the sun stand still, change color, and vibrate is also outside of natural law and I think we could agree that none of us have ever experienced the sun's movement across the sky ceasing on any given day. That is beyond the realm of natural law and if we are to expected to hold that this is a very real possibility then we must consider that it may happen at any moment. Lewontin was correct. Why do you consider my question to be 'stupid-assed? Is it because you consider it preposterous to even consider that a Divine foot (or a trickster demon) might influence the outcome of such an experiment? If your thinking lies along that line is 'yes' then we would be in agreement that there is no way we could incorporate, or accommodate, a Divine foot in the door.Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply