OHIA: Only Human Intelligence Allowed?

Allan:

The IDists here are quite happy to disagree with theistic evolutionists, for reasons I can’t fathom.

Your ignorance is not an argument. TE's deny that we can detect design/ intent. IDists live for it.

But without compelling supporting evidence,

We have that. All you do is deny, deny, deny, without having a viable alternative for the evidence

Well worth pursuing, but not sufficient to discard the current best explanation.

There isn't any scientific alternative to ID

An explanation that is supported by compelling and consistent evidence from multiple fields of study (eg, comparative anatomy, genomics, proteomics, molecular biology, geology, statistics, chemistry, physics, etc.).

You just described Intelligent Design. Thank you ET

JVL:

There doesn’t seem to be any interest in ID proponents in criticising each other even when you contradict each other

Evidence for such a thing would be nice. ET

JVL.

There doesn’t seem to be any interest in ID proponents in criticising each other even when you contradict each other.

This isn’t quite accurate. The IDists here are quite happy to disagree with theistic evolutionists, for reasons I can’t fathom. IDists don’t exclude young earth creationists, old earth creationists, aliens creationists or those who believe that it was done by a non-sentient designer. But, to get back to the OP, nobody is saying that design in nature can’t be inferred by comparison to human design. But without compelling supporting evidence, all we have is a “hmmm, that’s interesting” moment. Well worth pursuing, but not sufficient to discard the current best explanation. An explanation that is supported by compelling and consistent evidence from multiple fields of study (eg, comparative anatomy, genomics, proteomics, molecular biology, geology, statistics, chemistry, physics, etc.). Allan Keith

I just noticed this, kindly cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-is-design-and-why-is-it-relevant/ Especially, note:

it seems the definition of design is up again as an issue. The simplest summary I can give is: intelligently directed configuration, or if someone does not get the force of “directed,” we may amplify slightly: intelligently, intentionally directed configuration. This phenomenon is a commonplace, including the case of comments or utterances by objectors; that is, the attempted denial or dismissal instantly manifests the phenomenon. Going further, we cannot properly restrict the set of possible intelligences to ourselves or our planet or even the observed cosmos, starting with the common factor in these cases: evident or even manifest contingency of being. Bring to bear that a necessary being world-root is required to answer to why a contingent world is given that circular cause and a world from utter non-being (which hath not causal power) are both credibly absurd and we would be well advised to ponder the possibility of an intelligent, intentional, designing necessary being world-root given the fine tuning issue. The many observable and empirically well-founded signs of design manifest in the world of life (starting with alphanumeric complex coded messages in D/RNA and in associated execution machinery in the cell) joined to the fine tuning of a cosmos that supports such C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life suggests a unity of purpose in the evident design of cosmos and biological life. Taken together, these considerations ground a scientific project and movement that investigates, evaluates and publishes findings regarding such signs of design. Blend in the issues of design detection and unravelling in crypography, patterns of design in computing, strategic analysis, forensics and TRIZ the theory of inventive problem solving (thus also of technological evolution) and we have a wide-ranging zone of relevance.

kairosfocus

If intelligence has a special signature, no reason to restrict the inference to embodied intelligence. Especially since the signature logically entails intelligence cannot be material. This makes it doubly incongruent to insist we can only infer embodied intelligence. At any rate, even with this artificial restriction, we could still at least infer an embodied intelligence created the Earth's biological history. EricMH

Thank you tribune7. I have used that quote in some blog posts but it had slipped my mind until I started looking back at the evidence for ID outside of biology. And there it was. :cool: It is so appropriate in this thread ET

Thus Darwinism is now experimentally falsified in its claim that information is 'emergent' from a material basis. Another, somewhat esoteric, falsification of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution comes from the nature of mathematics itself. Although it is almost universally acknowledged that mathematics exists in some transcendent “Platonic” realm, and although every purported theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

What is the difference between naturalism and materialism? Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,, Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view. Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition - materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism

Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is falsified as being a scientific theory since it denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.

Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

Another somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution comes from population genetics itself. Donald Hoffman has shown, through numerous computer simulations of Darwinian evolution, that if Darwinian evolution were in fact true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

Yet, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies 'reliable observation', which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim that it is a scientific theory. Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Therefore, Darwinian evolution is falsified once again since observation of reality is experimentally found to be far more reliable of reality than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. As Richard Feynman stated:

The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: '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.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

Besides conscious observation becoming illusory and unreliable if Darwinian evolution were true, many other things, as previously mentioned in this thread, also become illusory too. Things that normal people resolutely hold to be concrete and real, such as 'personhood' and morality.

Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

Thus, the final somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution is the fact that Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.

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

bornagain77

Since falsifiability/testability is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, I want to delve a little more into falsifiability/testability. As already mentioned in this thread, the main reason that Darwinism fails the falsification/testability criteria for science is because there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the universe for mathematicians to ever build a rigorously testable mathematical model upon. And in post 145, I further showed JVL that both of Charles Darwin's 'vague' criteria for falsification have been met by Behe, Axe, and by Meyer. And yet, unsurprisingly, Darwinists STILL refused to accept those empirical falsifications of their theory. But to go further in falsifying Darwinism, since Darwinism is based on reductive materialism then Darwinism makes some very specific predictions. And those specific predictions, that are based on the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought, have now been experimentally falsified. First off, Darwinists hold that the particular form that any organism may take is reducible to the material particulars of that organism. In particular, Darwinists now hold that mutations to DNA are the primary means by which 'transformation of forms', i.e. macro-evolution, occurs. This 'prediction' inherent to the reductive materialism of Darwinism has now been shown to be false by several lines of evidence.

Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

Moreover, the failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself. In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."

Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Godel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html

To state what should be glaringly obvious, since the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian evolution can never explain how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality. In fact, such speculations, as the preceding article highlights, are now proved to be false and Darwinism is therefore now falsified. Another specific prediction of the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought is that the information in life is merely 'emergent' from a material basis. (Darwinists use to claim that the information in life was merely a 'metaphor', and that life was just basically 'complicated chemistry' but now, since information is found to be so integral to life, Darwinists now mainly claim that information is 'emergent' from a material basis.) Yet immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.

Information is physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) - video https://youtu.be/H35I83y5Uro

A distinct immaterial entity that has, of all things, a 'thermodynamic content'

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency - Lisa Zyga - January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html

The coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:

Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR

In fact, quantum information, of which classical information is a subset, is now found in molecular biology in every DNA, protein, etc,, molecule of life.

Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

Quantum information simply is not reducible to materialistic explanations. Period! As the following article states, “entangled objects (i.e. material particles) do not cause each other to behave the way they do.

Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-quantum-imply-instant-causation.html The One Theory of Quantum Mechanics That Actually Kind of Makes Sense - But most physicists don't buy it. - Dec 1, 2016 Excerpt: But despite Einstein's reservations, multiple mathematical theorems have all but proven that hidden variables cannot explain away all of the bizarre behaviors seen in quantum mechanics. The most recent and famous being John Stewart Bell's theorem, which concludes that, "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24114/pilot-wave-quantum-mechanics-theory/

bornagain77

OT: why is mobile friendly mode only available for the OP and not for comments? es58

Seversky, I never said that Popper did not bend over backwards to try to accommodate Darwinism as a science. (Imre Lakatos himself also tried to bend over backwards to accommodate Darwinism as a science) In fact, in my response to JVL I specifically referenced Popper's article from 1978 where he recanted much of his strong criticisms against Darwinism. And that is also precisely why I referenced the two later interviews of Popper, by John Horgan and Tom Bethell, where Popper took back his recantation. My main point has always been that, (regardless of such 'bending over backwards' by two prominent philosophers of science, i.e. Popper and Lakatos, to accommodate Darwinism as a science), Darwinism still fails to qualify as a science using the very criteria that was set out by Popper and Lakatos, i.e. falsifiability and predictability, and is therefore, using their very own criteria, more properly classified as a pseudoscience rather than a science.

Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

If anything, the fact that both Lakatos and Popper bent over backwards trying to accommodate Darwinism as a science, and yet Darwinism, using their very own criteria, still fails to qualify as a science is even stronger testimony to the fact that it is a pseudoscience.,,, i.e. They certainly had no bias against Darwinism and were doing everything they possibly could to try to qualify it as a science. Moreover, there are other measures besides falsifiability and predictability by which to judge whether Darwinism is scientific or not,,, and Darwinian evolution fails to met those other criteria as well:

There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon – in this case, Evolution – as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution … well … no … no … no … no … and no. [Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech, 2016, p. 27.]

Here is an article and video that goes into more detail explaining exactly why Darwinian evolution fails to meet those 5 generally recognized criteria for accepting something as scientific:

Is Darwinism a Scientific Theory? - Douglas Ell http://www.countingtogod.com/is-darwinism-a-scientific-theory/ Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://youtu.be/L7f_fyoPybw Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - paper https://docs.google.com/document/d/15p_qQGjQE-2-Q60Hsh513Beb3sISPHyOtaM1olPw1OM/edit

bornagain77

JVL @ 150

Okay, that’s more specific. But what did Popper himself actually have to say? I’m not saying his views are being mis-represented or not, I’m just wanting to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth to make sure there is no question.

In addition to the cherry-picked quotes provided by BA77, there is also the following from Popper:

Indeed, the recent vogue of historicism might be regarded as merely part of the vogue of evolutionism—a philosophy that owes its influence largely to the somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief. What we call the evolutionary hypothesis is an explanation of a host of biological and paleontological observations—for instance, of certain similarities between various species and genera—by the assumption of common ancestry of related forms. . . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106; emphasis added] There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340; emphasis added] I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167; emphasis added] The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. [Popper, 1978, p. 344; emphasis added]

The article from which these quotes were taken can be found here. Seversky

“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?” page 270 The Privileged Planet Excellent find. tribune7

Well clearly only human intelligence is allowed. Which brings us to this fine foretelling:

“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?” page 270 The Privileged Planet

Quite pathetic, actually. ET

Genetic algorithms use evolution by means of intelligent design. It is a useful concept. No one uses the premise of unguided evolution for anything. ET

--but I have yet to see someone implement it.-- It isn't that it must be accepted, it's that it shouldn't be dismissed as per Wikipedia which refers to it as a "pseudoscience". tribune7

JVL is right- I won't criticize bornagain77 as he has offered up everything you need to find what you are looking for. ET

JVL:

Yes, let’s discuss that!!

Start with this: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Dr Behe DBB

I have looked at Dr Dembski’s . . . formulation and it’s interesting but I have yet to see someone implement it.

Until evolutionary biologists come up with some numbers it cannot be implemented. And until they come up with a way to actually test their claims the numbers are all they have. But seeing they don't even have that then why bother? ET

as to:

"But what did Popper himself actually have to say? I’m not saying his views are being mis-represented or not, I’m just wanting to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth to make sure there is no question."

Popper said:

“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper - Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)

Popper also stated that the theory of natural selection is "almost tautological"

"I have in the past described the theory (of natural selection) as "almost tautological" http://mertsahinoglu.com/research/karl-popper-on-the-scientific-status-of-darwins-theory-of-evolution/ Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.

Tom Bethell on Karl Popper's rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory - 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352

Thus, we have two witnesses that say Popper took back his recantation. Of course Popper's main claim to fame is falsification:

"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 Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

And in that regards, Darwin certainly fails the falsification/testability criteria:

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

And as linked to previously, the main reason that Darwinism fails the falsification/testability criteria for science is because the is no known 'law of evolution' within the universe for mathematicians to ever build a rigorously testable mathematical model upon:

Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

You then state:

"No one has said there was a ‘law’ of evolution. And how did mathematics come into it?"

So you agree that the is no physical law within the known universe for you to appeal to so as to support your theory? And you don't see that as problem how? I don't blame you for trying to stay away from mathematics. The entire concept of a transcendent mathematical world (platonic world) needing to verify a theory that denies that anything beyond material realm exists is not exactly a good predicament to be in scientifically is it? :)

Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

as to:

That’s because they don’t think the falsification criteria have been met. That doesn’t make it a pseudo-science. That just means a lot of people working in that field disagree with you.

And yet it is the evidence itself refutes evolution. Moreover, that highlights the problem with Darwinism having no rigid falsification criteria that is based on a testable mathematical model (which is based on a physical law). i.e. Darwin's falsification criteria is extremely vague compared to rel scientific theories. as to:

And no, I am not going to dig the peer-review out for you. Well, if I said that to ET he’d lambast me for it. But I bet he won’t criticism you for saying it.

The peer-review is readily accessible from the provided links and I am not going to list all the peer-reviews for you. Do your own homework! Whereas your peer-reviewed empirical evidence is nonexistent! bornagain77

tribune7 The principle of ID is that designed objects have quantifiable characteristics and that if an object has these characteristics we can know that it is designed. I think I said this earlier. Yes, let's discuss that!! Dembski tries to do it using information theory in which — I’ll do my best based on my understanding — if the amount of information is present in a particular object exceeds any reasonable probabilistic occurrence by chance, you can be sure it’s designed. I have looked at Dr Dembski's . . . formulation and it's interesting but I have yet to see someone implement it. OK, but you can’t use an “unknown process” to rebut a scientific claim. I'm not rebutting anything. I'm saying it's really hard to rule some things out. A minor critique JVL. If you include responses to me with those to someone else, there is a good chance I’ll miss them. I'm sorry, I do the best I can with the time that I have. JVL

JVL Well, aside from just looking at something what methods do you think are being used by ID proponents. That's an interesting thing to ask. Aside from just looking at something -- like fossils --what methods do you think are are being used to buttress the theory of evolution? OK, seriously. It is a fair question. Or sort of a fair question. "Just looking at something" is obviously an important part of the scientific method. The principle of ID is that designed objects have quantifiable characteristics and that if an object has these characteristics we can know that it is designed. I think I said this earlier. Dembski tries to do it using information theory in which -- I'll do my best based on my understanding -- if the amount of information is present in a particular object exceeds any reasonable probabilistic occurrence by chance, you can be sure it's designed. Now there are those who attack it -- not very well, but it is fair that they do -- however what he had done goes far beyond "just looking at something". I’m not saying there is or is not some unknown process; I’m saying you can’t rule out that there is one. OK, but you can't use an "unknown process" to rebut a scientific claim. A minor critique JVL. If you include responses to me with those to someone else, there is a good chance I'll miss them. tribune7

bornagain77 and yet here it is (it is the second link not the first) https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1/lecture/cAdvB/lecture-4-9-is-evolutionary-biology-scientific Okay, that's more specific. But what did Popper himself actually have to say? I'm not saying his views are being mis-represented or not, I'm just wanting to hear things straight from the horse's mouth to make sure there is no question. I note that you did not say rigid falsification criteria based on a universal natural law. Which is good since Darwin, (a liberal theologian by training), found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’, and since there is no universal ‘law of evolution’ to base the math upon anyway. No one has said there was a 'law' of evolution. And how did mathematics come into it? Moreover, the falsification criteria that were set forth by Darwin have all been met by Michael Behe, by Douglas Axe, by Stephen Meyer, and by Lee Spetner. Yet, despite each of Darwin’s own falsification criteria being met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.) That's because they don't think the falsification criteria have been met. That doesn't make it a pseudo-science. That just means a lot of people working in that field disagree with you. And no, I am not going to dig the peer-review out for you. Well, if I said that to ET he'd lambast me for it. But I bet he won't criticise you for saying it. jdk JVL. I support your work, but I can see that your conversation here with ET is not very constructive. ET is completely honest and straight in his beliefs, he says it like he sees it and he's clear about that. That is good. We disagree on some basic . . . . how to say it . . . interpretations? That doesn't seem quite right. But at least, I hope, we're both clear about that. I strongly suspect that if I were ET's neighbour we would get along well. I would certainly trust him to look after my stuff and my property, He could borrow my mower anytime!! He'd probably return it in better working order to be honest. We do disagree on some things but that fact that we both care strongly is an indication that we both see the same things as being important. And that I do respect. Perhaps I should say that more often. That is part of the reason I'm motivated to try and converse on this blog. I feel that it's good to try and understand folks who you disagree with but who clearly see the same things as being important. JVL

jdk:

Also, my guess is that Futuyma and Shubin don’t positively Lamarck’s ideas as currently relevant, but that’s a different topic.

That isn't the point. The point is they talk in terms of morphology and not genetics. That was OK in Darwin's day but since the advent of the modern synthesis the changes have to be unpacked at the genetic level. But they cannot link the genetics to the transformations. ET

Can I say that I hate conversations with people who don't even understand the concepts they try to defend and cannot produce any methodology, evidence or science that supports them. They can't even acknowledge that they don't have a mechanism for producing eukaryotes and they have to be given starting populations of prokaryotes. Then there is the issue of that missing scientific theory of evolution... ET

JVL:

You’ve clearly misinterpreted things.

You are clearly full of it

It is clearly stated in Futuyma’s textbook.

Nope. Clearly you are happy to bluff your way through life.

I know it won’t happen but I would like to hear from other UD stalwarts on whether or not they agree with your view.

They cannot find any scientific theory of evolution and they all agree that evolutionism is BS. Shubin talks of evolution at the morphological level. He looks at fossils to make his connections never once trying to link the genetics to the transformations. Futuyma does the same thing with bird beaks and limbs, Darwin did it with eyes. And to top it off you didn't even understand Darwin's case for natural selection being a designer mimic. ET

jdk:

I support your work, but I can see that your conversation here with ET is not very constructive.

Evidence free drivel is never constructive, Jack. ET

JVL states: The video is no in the OP on that UD thread. and yet here it is (it is the second link not the first) https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1/lecture/cAdvB/lecture-4-9-is-evolutionary-biology-scientific As to:

Me: How many more years of failure will it take to falsify a theory that has no rigid falsification criteria??? JVL: Even Darwin spelled out some falsification criteria.

I note that you did not say rigid falsification criteria based on a universal natural law. Which is good since Darwin, (a liberal theologian by training), found mathematics to be 'repugnant', and since there is no universal 'law of evolution' to base the math upon anyway. Moreover, the falsification criteria that were set forth by Darwin have all been met by Michael Behe, by Douglas Axe, by Stephen Meyer, and by Lee Spetner. Yet, despite each of Darwin's own falsification criteria being met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.)

"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." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840 Michael Behe - Observed Limits of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." 27:50 minute mark: no known, or unknown, evolutionary process helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance – video (2017) https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA Interview With Dr. Douglas Axe (podcast on the strict limits found for changing one protein to another very similar protein) - July 2012 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-24T21_33_53-07_00 “Any transition of form is pure fantasy. There is no demonstration of it.” Douglas Axe - “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”6 - Charles Darwin https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/coyne_and_the_meaning_of_evolu/ video - Darwin's Doubt - recorded March 7, 2017 - In this webinar, Dr. Stephen Meyer will tell the story of the mystery surrounding this (Cambrian) explosion of animal life - a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal. During the last half century, biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological information - stored in DNA and elsewhere in cells - to building animal forms. Meyer will show that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes. http://foclonline.org/webinar-recording/darwin%E2%80%99s-doubt Common Descent: An Obituary - Lee M. Spetner - June 21, 2016 Excerpt: By the beginning of the twentieth century, Charles Darwin’s suggestion for the variation on which he meant for natural selection to act was rejected because it turned out to be nonheritable. In the first third of the 20th century several replacement suggestions for the variation were offered only to be later rejected. In 1941 a project was launched to establish the theory of evolution on a sound basis by bringing together facts and methods from all branches of science, and a decade later was considered fully established. The modern synthesis (MS) embraced natural selection and took the variation to be mutations and recombinations in the chromosomes, although exactly what these were was not clearly understood at the time. The discovery of the structure of the DNA in the mid 20th century was thought to solidify the MS. The random mutations were identified with random changes in the DNA sequence attributed to DNA-copying errors and genetic recombination. The variation was no longer a vague genetic effect that it had been: it was now an understood random process. With a known random mechanism now available for the variation on which natural selection could operate, the randomness became subject to mathematical investigation. Mutation rates could be measured and in principle the probability of an evolutionary event could be calculated. For the first time it became possible to check if Darwin’s celebrated mechanism of random variation and natural selection could really account for CD. But the advocates of CD never picked up the challenge to publish any probability calculations. Some who questioned CD, however, did calculate and found the probabilities of speciation under random mutation and natural selection in the available time to be negligibly small and essentially zero. These results were never competently rebutted. The conclusion is inescapable that CD has no theoretical backing, has been refuted, and is not a valid scientific theory. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/06/common_descent/ Author: Lee M. Spetner https://evolutionnews.org/author/lspetner/

And no JVL, I am not going to dig the peer-review out for you. bornagain77

JVL. I support your work, but I can see that your conversation here with ET is not very constructive. Also, my guess is that Futuyma and Shubin don't positively Lamarck's ideas as currently relevant, but that's a different topic. jdk

Can I just say that I have enjoyed some of the conversations I've had here but the continual badgering by ET and bornagain77 have made my it much less pleasant. It's not my call, it's not my forum, but I would love to know if the rest of y'all agree with their approach and opinions. JVL

ET Futuyma, Shubin, Darwin et al. They all talk about morphological changes as if they were talking about Lamarck’s ideas You've clearly misinterpreted things. And since no one like Origenes is going to call you on it here it's down to me. And I doubt you'd accept my arguments anyway. There isn’t anything to acknowledge. Why can’t it be found with an internet search? Why don’t you know who the author was, when it was written, when it was published or what journal published it? Why can’t Futuyma tell us any of that? It is clearly stated in Futuyma's textbook. And shut up. I am not rejecting anything. I cannot reject what doesn’t exist. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. I'm happy to quit now. You are right- YOU will never be able to change anything. You don’t know what evidence is and you definitely don’t understand science. Okay. I took the courses. I did the studies. I have read peer-reviewed articles that are full of speculation and very short on anything else. Well, I guess we're done then. I know it won't happen but I would like to hear from other UD stalwarts on whether or not they agree with your view. There doesn't seem to be any interest in ID proponents in criticising each other even when you contradict each other. But that's your call. JVL

JVL:

So I guess you’re not interested in a real conversation about your experience at Stonehenge.

Not with you

I can’t demonstrate because you actually have to do the work and read the research.

Been there, done that

NS is not a designer.

I know that. But Darwin's great idea was that it was a designer mimic. Clearly you don't know much of anything about the position you are trying to defend. Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer The sound you hear is me laughing at you ET