Optimus, replying to KN on ID as ideology, summarises the case for design in the natural world

_{kairosfocus

March 27, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

The following reply by Optimus to KN in the TSZ thread, is far too good not to headline as an excellent summary of the case for design as a scientifically legitimate view, not mere “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” ideology motivated and driven by anti-materialism and/or a right-wing, theocratic, culture war mentality commonly ascribed to “Creationism” by its objectors:

______________

>> KN

It’s central to the ideological glue that holds together “the ID movement” that the following are all conflated:Darwin’s theories; neo-Darwinism; modern evolutionary theory; Epicurean materialistic metaphysics; Enlightenment-inspired secularism. (Maybe I’m missing one or two pieces of the puzzle.) In my judgment, a mind incapable of making the requisite distinctions hardly deserves to be taken seriously.

I think your analysis of the driving force behind ID is way off base. That’s not to say that persons who advocate ID (including myself) aren’t sometimes guilty of sloppy use of language, nor am I making the claim that the modern synthetic theory of evolution is synonymous with materialism or secularism. Having made that acknowledgement, though, it is demonstrably true that (1) metaphysical presuppostions absolutely undergird much of the modern synthetic theory. This is especially true with regard to methodological naturalism (of course, MN is distinct from ontological naturalism, but if, as some claim, science describes the whole of reality, then reality becomes coextensive with that which is natural). Methodological naturalism is not the end product of some experiment or series of experiments. On the contrary it is a ground rule that excludes a priori any explanation that might be classed as “non-natural”. Some would argue that it is necessary for practical reasons, after all we don’t want people atributing seasonal thunderstorms to Thor, do we? However, science could get along just as well as at present (even better in my view) if the ground rule is simply that any proposed causal explanation must be rigorously defined and that it shall not be accepted except in light of compelling evidence. Problem solved! Though some fear “supernatural explanation” (which is highly definitional) overwhelming the sciences, such concerns are frequently oversold. Interestingly, the much maligned Michael Behe makes very much the same point in his 1996 Darwin’s Black Box:

If my graduate student came into my office and said that the angel of death killed her bacterial culture, I would be disinclined to believe her…. Science has learned over the past half millenium that the universe operates with great regularity the great majority of the time, and that simple laws and predictable behavior explain most physical phenomena.
Darwin’s Black Box pg. 241

If Behe’s expression is representative of the ID community (which I would venture it is), then why the death-grip on methodological naturalism? I suggest that its power lies in its exclusionary function. It rules out ID right from the start, before even any discussions about the emprical data are to be had. MN means that ID is persona non grata, thus some sort of evolutionary explanation must win by default. (2) In Darwin’s own arguments in favor of his theory he rely heavily on metaphysical assumptions about what God would or wouldn’t do. Effectively he uses special creation by a deity as his null hypothesis, casting his theory as the explanatory alternative. Thus the adversarial relationship between Darwin (whose ideas are foundational to the MST) and theism is baked right into The Origin. To this very day, “bad design” arguments in favor of evolution still employ theological reasoning. (3) The modern synthetic theory is often used in the public debate as a prop for materialism (which I believe you acknowledged in another comment). How many times have we heard the famed Richard Dawkins quote to the effect that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’? Very frequently evolutionary theory is impressed into service to show the superfluousness of theism or to explain away religion as an erstwhile useful phenomenon produced by natural selection (or something to that effect). Hardly can it be ignored that the most enthusiastic boosters of evolutionary theory tend to fall on the atheist/materialist/reductionist side of the spectrum (e.g. Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, P.Z. Meyers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Peter Atkins, Daniel Dennett, Will Provine). My point simply stated is that it is not at all wrong-headed to draw a connection between the modern synthetic theory and the aforementioned class of metaphysical views. Can it be said that the modern synthetic theory (am I allowed just to write Neo-Darwinism for short?) doesn’t mandate nontheistic metaphysics? Sure. But it’s just as true that they often accompany each other.

In chalking up ID to a massive attack of confused cognition, you overlook the substantive reasons why many (including a number of PhD scientists) consider ID to be a cogent explanation of many features of our universe (especially the bioshpere):

-Functionally-specified complex information [FSCI] present in cells in prodigdious quantities
-Sophisticated mechanical systems at both the micro and macro level in organisms (many of which exhibit IC)
-Fine-tuning of fundamental constants
-Patterns of stasis followed by abrupt appearance (geologically speaking) in the fossil record

In my opinion the presence of FSCI/O and complex biological machinery are very powerful indicators of intelligent agency, judging from our uniform and repeated experience. Also note that none of the above reasons employ theological presuppositions. They flow naturally, inexorably from the data. And, yes, we are all familiar with the objection that organisms are distinct from artificial objects, the implication being that our knowledge from the domain of man-made objects doesn’t carry over to biology. I think this is fallacious. Everyone acknowledges that matter inhabiting this universe is made up of atoms, which in turn are composed of still other particles. This is true of all matter, not just “natural” things, not just “artificial” things – everything. If such is the case, then must not the same laws apply to all matter with equal force? From whence comes the false dichotomy that between “natural” and “artificial”? If design can be discerned in one case, why not in the other?

To this point we have not even addressed the shortcomings of the modern synthetic theory (excepting only its metaphysical moorings). They are manifold, however – evidential shortcomings (e.g. lack of empirical support), unjustified extrapolations, question-begging assumptions, ad hoc rationalizations, tolerance of “just so” stories, narratives imposed on data instead of gleaned from data, conflict with empirical data from generations of human experience with breeding, etc. If at the end of the day you truly believe that all ID has going for it is a culture war mentality, then may I politely suggest that you haven’t been paying attention.>>

______________

Well worth reflecting on, and Optimus deserves to be headlined. END

Comments

Regarding Stephen Meyer's design inference formulation, Inference to the Best Explanation, or abductive reasoning, it involves accounting for a sufficient cause currently in operation, comparing it to competing causes, and choosing the one with the best capacity to explain the effect in question. Doing so does not open up an explanatory flaw just because the cause, in this case intelligence, cannot be explained by current scientific procedures or areas of study. It would be quite convenient if every cause we identified for a given effect was a simplification all the way up the causal chain, and that the mechanics of each cause could be discovered, but this is not necessarily the case. The burrow of a trapdoor spider is relatively simple, compared to the spider itself, which is fundamentally complex. But if we can discover by observation that the cause of the trapdoor burrow is indeed the trapdoor spider, have we introduced an unneeded complexity or gap in the causal chain for the burrow itself, just because we cannot explain the burrow via a simple cause, and the spider by an even simpler one? Certainly not. The best explanation for the trapdoor burrow is a trapdoor spider, even if we cannot explain the spider itself. To explain the burrow by identifying its designer is an epistemic success, even if it complicates our understanding of the causal chain. But what if we never observed a spider, but sought an explanation for a plethora of trapdoor burrows? I daresay it would be acceptable to infer an intelligent cause, if some sort of intelligent activity could produce the effect in question, and no natural cause could be identified. We wouldn't know the designer, and we wouldn't know the specifics of how the design was brought about (a silk hinge on a clump of soil covering a hole) but we could infer design, at least provisionally, barring the discovery of a mechanistic explanation. Doing so has the epistemic benefit of adding to knowledge, causes capable of producing features in the effect, and does not subtract from the set of other known causes, namely physical law. Meyer says of his own argument,
The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.
If we can reasonably infer an intelligent cause for some effect, by identifying a sufficient causal element, we have added to our understanding, even if we are unable at present to explain the nature of the cause. This takes me back to presuming that known physical laws are not solely capable of causing certain observed events, such as the construction of jet airplanes. If we take into account all events that occur on the planet, and in principle rule out intelligent agency acting purposefully toward a goal, we have left a gaping hole in our ability to account for observed effects, such as the aforementioned jet airplane. In actuality we have a root node of explanation: Was this object the product of design or physical law, with two edges proceeding from it: product of design; and product of physical law. Upon that node is a partition which is both mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Each branch leads us to ask different questions about the nature of the event in question. If the object is identified as the product of design, we might then ask who, how, when, etc. If the object is explicable by physical laws, we might ask which process, over what period, etc. Since intentional acts by intelligent agents are a known causal force, they are needed to explain all observed effects, even if we can't formulate an explanation for the agent himself. Otherwise there is a gigantic hole in our epistemology. In other words, we are hopeless to explain jet airplanes by reference to physical law. /soapboxChance Ratcliff_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

@BA77 #221 It's still there, second paragraph "intelligent cause" as I typed it this morning and as his article [2] states. Indeed, the ID and evolution articles on the wiki take some effort to read through all that emotional intensity drowning any information article may have.nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson #218 So either 1 or 3 would be appropriate in this context. Seems like he is using the word in a reasonable way. He is using it in the meaning 3, as logical implication, especially in the context of the previous sentence, meant to parallel this one, where he uses term infer. In any case, it doesn't imply "intelligent mind" or "mental agency" in either meaning. He is gratuitously embellishing the intelligent agency with mental facilities, which he can't know. In a strict sense, he can't even know that for anything or anyone beyond himself. Hence in that sentence, the phrasing is doubly sloppy, since he doesn't even known what that unseen entity is. That kind of needless sloppy leaps to obviously unwarranted conclusions diminish the credibility of the rest of his argument, since a reader will wonder what else is he embellishing.nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

NL: "I just corrected his (Dembski's) wiki article bio" And have you checked your correction since then? Maybe it will stick, but wiki is notorious for spreading false propaganda about ID, and then fighting tooth and nail to prevent corrections from being made:
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html
bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

NL and CR, to focus in on this:
“Just because one can observe beneficial mutations in the lab or in nature, that doesn’t mean the pick of DNA alteration was random among all possible alterations. It only means that DNA transformed in a beneficial manner in a given amount of time, but implies nothing about nature of guidance (intelligently guided or random).”
NL, it seems to me you are laboring under the illusion that there is far more evidence for 'beneficial' mutations than there actually is. Dr. Behe, a short while back, did a survey of literature over the past for decades and found:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
And Dr. Behe, in his book 'Edge Of Evolution', and in a 'updated' lecture of which he recently gave here,,,
What are the Limits of Darwinism? A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto - November 15th, 2012 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_XN8s-zXx4
,,,points out that in a survey of all HIV and Malaria adaptations in the wild, which greatly outclass the opportunities for adaptations (mutational firepower) of all microorganisms seen in the lab, or the mutational firepower for all higher lifeforms on earth combined for millions of years,,,
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135:
"Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
It is also important to note that no limit was placed on the type of mutations that were allowed to be considered:
Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html
Moreover, it is found that combining supposedly beneficial mutations leads to what is called 'negative epistasis':
Epistasis between Beneficial Mutations - July 2011 Excerpt: We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations. https://uncommondescent.com/epigenetics/darwins-beneficial-mutations-do-not-benefit-each-other/ Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations; which is approx. equivalent to 1 million years of supposed human evolution) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
In fact, I have yet to see any unambiguous evidence that even a single novel functional protein has been created in life (whether or not the mutations are considered to be intelligently guided or randomly guided). It is from such consistent findings for all adaptations considered (many of which I have not discussed here) that the foundational overriding principle, in life sciences, for explaining the sub-speciation is Genetic Entropy. Genetic Entropy, is a rule (Much like Behe's 'First Rule', which draws its foundation in science from the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and from the Law of Conservation of Information (Dembski, Marks, Abel), and the principle can be stated something like this:
"All beneficial adaptations away from a 'parent' species for a sub-species, which increase fitness to a particular environment, will always come at a loss of the optimal functional information that was originally present in the parent species genome."
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, due to his vastly greater knowledge in the life sciences than I, states the principle, or 'first rule', for all biological adaptations much more succinctly than I can here:
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html
NL, I could much deeper into this particular area pointing out interesting stuff, but I just wanted to, for now, point out the main fact to you that you, nor Darwinists, have ANY evidence for any non-trivial functional complexity being generated in life, whether or not these processes for adaptation are presupposed to be random, or to be intelligently guided!,,, It appears, at least to me, that God wants no confusion whatsoever as to where life originates from! Verse and music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Hillsong - Mighty to Save - With Subtitles/Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ
bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Chance ratcliff #216: You rightly suggest that given the probabilities involved, intelligent involvement is a better explanation than random chance, with a ~95% likelihood of a guided fix over a lucky set of throws. Dembski is much more cautious, suggesting a partition of 10^-150 for a design inference. I was wondering whether anyone would notice, since the example was deliberately picked to just cross the 95% threshold, which is considered good enough in epidemiology, psychology,... Dembski is surely playing it safe there. Not that it helped much. I just corrected his wiki article bio in which someone was putting words in his mouth by attributing him "intelligent mind", when he actually wrote "intelligent cause" (which is fine, although "intelligent process" would be even better for advancing ID into a legitimate science). His choice of words is more guarded than Meyer's, though.nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

nightlight @217: Much ado about nothing perhaps? imply (?m?pla?) — vb , -plies , -plying , -plied 1. to express or indicate by a hint; 2. to suggest or involve as a necessary consequence 3. logic to enable (a conclusion) to be inferred ----- So either 1 or 3 would be appropriate in this context. Seems like he is using the word in a reasonable way.Eric Anderson_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

StephenB #207: Given the distinction I have just made, why would you continue to conflate the scientific demonstration with the philosophical implication of that demonstration by using the word "scientific demonstration" to characterize the implication? As far as I can see, he is conflating terms infer and imply, using them interchangeably. Here is Google books link, to his article with highlighted terms "intelligent mind" and "infer" (extending into the follow up pages). On page 93, he first gives example in which we "infer" "intelligent agents" when seeing human artifacts, then follows up saying in the next sentence: "Similarly, the specifically arranged nucleotide sequences,[...] imply the past action of an intelligent mind, even if such mental agency cannot be directly observed." Both sentences are deliberately structured to exactly parallel each other in form and phrasing in order to amplify the equivalence of the two conclusions. In any case, that seems a very weak attempt at a defense on finer semantic ambiguities, at best. For example, in physics and math papers (his major was physics, after all), "A implies B" is used to indicate that B follows logically from A (equations, theorems, etc). I can't think of an instance I have seen "infer" used in such context. Using "infer" wouldn't even make sense here since with "infer" the subject is the agency doing the inference, while "equation A implies eq. B" is an impersonal form of logical implication, which is common in scientific literature, meaning precisely that B logically follows from A. That's how I read the cited sentence and apparently, so does he, where "implies" was used in the impersonal form of logical implication (you can't use "infer" in his sentence, it wouldn't make sense since he has no subject who could do the "inferring" in that sentence).nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

nightlight, At #191 you wrote,
"You calculate the size of event space N when rolling 3 dice, which is N=6^3=216 combinations 1=(1,1,1), 2=(1,1,2),… 216=(6,6,6). The odds of not getting (1,1,1) in 1 throw are 215/216. The odds of not getting (1,1,1) in 2 throws are (215/216)^2,… the odds of not getting (1,1,1) in 10 throws are (215/216)^10 = 95.47 %, hence the chance of achieving (1,1,1) in 10 of fewer tries is 100-95.47=4.53 %. So, a random process couldn’t be getting (1,1,1) in 10 or fewer throws 50% of the time, but would get it only 4.54 % of time. Hence, the process was intelligently guided."
I just wanted to point out that here you are making a design inference. ;) You rightly suggest that given the probabilities involved, intelligent involvement is a better explanation than random chance, with a ~95% likelihood of a guided fix over a lucky set of throws. Dembski is much more cautious, suggesting a partition of 10^-150 for a design inference. This is done to rule out chance events, and is very conservative with respect to inferring design.Chance Ratcliff_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

nightlight @191,
"Just because one can observe beneficial mutations in the lab or in nature, that doesn’t mean the pick of DNA alteration was random among all possible alterations. It only means that DNA transformed in a beneficial manner in a given amount of time, but implies nothing about nature of guidance (intelligently guided or random)."
I agree with that. A genetic change occurring, even simple ones, does not imply that the change was random with respect to the entire genome. This touches on doubts I've been having about replication errors in general, that the genome space in prokaryotes, specifically e.coli, is vast at 4.6 million base pairs. Unless my math is wrong, this indicates that any specific point mutation occurs in a space of 20^(4.6*10^6) possible substitutions at the expression level. I may well be missing something important, but a point mutation caused by a replication error, say a single one that confers some selectable advantage given a specific environmental factor, should not be expected to occur twice in the age of the universe, if even once. So yes, this seems to present a problem for neo-Darwinism where a single point mutation occurs independently more than once in different strains. At least to me, this is suggestive of targeted mutations as opposed to strictly random ones. This doesn't mean randomness isn't a factor, it just suggests that perhaps some areas of the genome can vary at higher rates than others, and yes, that is indicative of intelligence, because it hints at a targeted search. I don't think it is a problem for ID though. Just because ID doesn't take issue with the possibility of a random mutation introducing a net positive effect, does not mean that it steps onto a slippery slope of accepting any genomic changes as purely random. Actually, as with "junk" DNA, the presumed "random" factor of biological change presents a gap that appears to be shrinking as new discoveries come to light. I'd appreciate if you or anyone watching could check my assumptions above regarding the size of the genome space with respect to uniform random mutations.Chance Ratcliff_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Chance Ratcliff #208: nightlight: they needlessly concede that "random" mutation completely explains "micro-evolution". Are you able to support that assertion by providing a relevant quote from a major ID proponent? That was a conclusion based on the absence in any ID literature or talks of any challenges to "randomness" attribute of spontaneous mutations, and silent going along with the ND leap of logic by which any observed (in lab or nature) instance of microevolution is result of random mutation (or sequence of such combined with NS). The challenge would have to ask those claiming "randomness" to show their event space and the weights they assigned to all possible alterations of DNA in order to conclude it was random rather than due to some 'intelligent process' (reasoning analogous to that in the dice example). If you have seen a challenge on the above issues, you are welcome to bring it up. This is not the case. Point mutations caused by copying errors occur during DNA replication. This fact is made implicit by the presence of multiple error correction mechanisms for replication which each have a less-than-perfect effect in correcting errors. For changes that can be wrought by a point mutation, it's acceptable to presume a point mutation as the cause, when no other cause is implicated. The issue is when such copying error is Mb>credited for the beneficial effects (in order to boost the mythical powers of the RM + NS feedback loop). A counter-example of validity of that type crediting in technological evolution -- a programmer may get a copying error when transferring source code from one machine to another. Who should one credit for the subsequently observed improvement in the repaired code -- to the copying error or to the intelligent activity by the programmer who detected the error and rewrote the affected code, improving it in the process? Copying/reproduction errors are also observed in evolution of technologies. But one would really have to strain to find a case when the copying error is credited for the subsequent evolutionary improvements of the product. The improvement is always the result of the corrective actions by the intelligent agency (humans), rather than random damage. Any such error is at most a trigger (for the intelligent agency), which should only reinforce the conclusion that an intelligent agency was active in generating the resulting beneficial novelties. After all, if you snap a thread on a sweater, it is not going to get fixed let alone improved without some intelligent agency getting involved. Any subsequent improvement of a sweater after a randomly snapped thread only amplifies the evidence of activity of the intelligent agency. Yet, neo-Darwinians crow when they find beneficial mutations, as if it proves the absence of such intelligent agency. And ID proponents, routinely concede in such cases (usually by silence, absence of challenge), when in fact such beneficial mutations are in favor of ID and they should the ones crowing about beneficial mutations. The root cause of this paradoxical situation is precisely the key concession about the randomness of any observed mutations. Interestingly, James Shapiro is often much more critical about such gratuitous attributions of randomness to beneficial mutation than the ID proponents.nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

BA77 @209, thanks for those links. I had seen the video before, probably because you had generously provided it previously, but the Biota Curve article was new to me, and I enjoyed it. Phenotypic plasticity looks to provide a rich avenue of biological research, and is yet something else that makes the neo-Darwinian mechanism of variation -- random mutation -- look powerless to do much of anything significant.Chance Ratcliff_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Copy paste of the corrected typo wpould have helped... kairosfocus #194 Pardon, but - with all due respect - ignoring cogent correction from several sources then repeating the same talking points ad nauseum will not work at UD. I think two of us have for whatever reason hit a semantic wall and there was no progress over several exchanges. Hence I chose to leave the last word with you, if only to avoid boring the rest of the guys here with what was increasingly turning into a semantic nitpick tiff. For example, on "redness" I was talking about qualia of red ("hard problem of consciousness"), while you were talking about physiology of color perception. Hence there was nothing to concede or stand corrected and change in what I was saying. Similarly, on self-evident schema of any natural science S: (M) - Model space (formalism & algorithms) (E) - Empirical procedures & facts of the "real" world (O) - Operational rules mapping between (M) and (E) The (M) component is a generator of meaningful statements in S. The "statements" can be numbers, words, symbols, pictures,... The generator must follow the rules of logic (e.g. it shouldn't produce mutually contradictory statements). Output obtained within (M) by one practitioner of S should be reproducible within (M) by any other practitioner of S, i.e. the procedures of (M) are algorithmic (one could conceive a computer checking the output or generating it i.e. the operation in (M) should be in principle programmable and executable on a computer). Component (E) is analogously, a procedural system and technology for extracting the data relevant to S from the "real" world. Component (O) are the procedures (algorithms) which map between statements produced by (M) and empirical facts produced by (E), allowing for falsification of statements by (M). In most cases the mappings by (O) are implicit, accomplished by simply using the same name for the corresponding elements of (M) and (E). There is nothing of substance that can be argued about this basic schema which consists mostly of definitions and labels (perhaps priority of various requirements may be reordered), since it is self-evident and the only issues one may have are a matter of taste. I happen to like it since is very useful analytical tool for troubleshooting and disentangling otherwise perplexing semantic tangles such as those often encountered in interpretations of Quantum Theory (that's the literature where I picked this scheme from). You objected to "algorithmic" attribute of (M), a term which you define more narrowly than I do (my semantics classify as algorithmic any procedure which can be programmed into a computer or an android robot or any other computer controlled devices if it requires actions in the real world). Hence, there wasn't anything to correct or retract about any of that either. If you wish to have the last word, that's fine with me, I will leave it at what was said above.nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

oops, sorry, mistyped the closing a-tag in #210. kairosfocus #194 Pardon, but - with all due respect - ignoring cogent correction from several sources then repeating the same talking points ad nauseum will not work at UD. I think two of us have for whatever reason hit a semantic wall and there was no progress over several exchanges. Hence I chose to leave the last word with you, if only to avoid boring the rest of the guys here with what was increasingly turning into a semantic nitpick tiff. For example, on "redness" I was talking about qualia of red ("hard problem of consciousness"), while you were talking about physiology of color perception. Hence there was nothing to concede or stand corrected and change in what I was saying. Similarly, on self-evident schema of any natural science S: (M) - Model space (formalism & algorithms) (E) - Empirical procedures & facts of the "real" world (O) - Operational rules mapping between (M) and (E) The (M) component is a generator of meaningful statements in S. The "statements" can be numbers, words, symbols, pictures,... The generator must follow the rules of logic (e.g. it shouldn't produce mutually contradictory statements). Output obtained within (M) by one practitioner of S should be reproducible within (M) by any other practitioner of S, i.e. the procedures of (M) are algorithmic (one could conceive a computer checking the output or generating it i.e. the operation in (M) should be in principle programmable and executable on a computer). Component (E) is analogously, a procedural system and technology for extracting the data relevant to S from the "real" world. Component (O) are the procedures (algorithms) which map between statements produced by (M) and empirical facts produced by (E), allowing for falsification of statements by (M). In most cases the mappings by (O) are implicit, accomplished by simply using the same name for the corresponding elements of (M) and (E). There is nothing of substance that can be argued about this basic schema which consists mostly of definitions and labels (perhaps priority of various requirements may be reordered), since it is self-evident and the only issues one may have are a matter of taste. I happen to like it since is very useful analytical tool for troubleshooting and disentangling otherwise perplexing semantic tangles such as those often encountered in interpretations of Quantum Theory (that's the literature where I picked this scheme from). You objected to "algorithmic" attribute of (M), a term which you define more narrowly than I do (my semantics classify as algorithmic any procedure which can be programmed into a computer or an android robot or any other computer controlled devices if it requires actions in the real world). Hence, there wasn't anything to correct or retract about any of that either. If you wish to have the last word, that's fine with me, I will leave it at what was said above. Tag edited, KFnightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus #194 Pardon, but - with all due respect - ignoring cogent correction from several sources then repeating the same talking points ad nauseum will not work at UD. I think two of us have for whatever reason hit a semantic wall and there was no progress over several exchanges. Hence I chose to leave the last word with you, if only to avoid boring the rest of the guys here with what was increasingly turning into a semantic nitpick tiff. For example, on "redness" I was talking about qualia of red ("hard problem of consciousness"), while you were talking about physiology of color perception. Hence there was nothing to concede or stand corrected and change in what I was saying. Similarly, on self-evident schema of any natural science S: (M) - Model space (formalism & algorithms) (E) - Empirical procedures & facts of the "real" world (O) - Operational rules mapping between (M) and (E) The (M) component is a generator of meaningful statements in S. The "statements" can be numbers, words, symbols, pictures,... The generator must follow the rules of logic (e.g. it shouldn't produce mutually contradictory statements). Output obtained within (M) by one practitioner of S should be reproducible within (M) by any other practitioner of S, i.e. the procedures of (M) are algorithmic (one could conceive a computer checking the output or generating it i.e. the operation in (M) should be in principle programmable and executable on a computer). Component (E) is analogously, a procedural system and technology for extracting the data relevant to S from the "real" world. Component (O) are the procedures (algorithms) which map between statements produced by (M) and empirical facts produced by (E), allowing for falsification of statements by (M). In most cases the mappings by (O) are implicit, accomplished by simply using the same name for the corresponding elements of (M) and (E). There is nothing of substance that can be argued about this basic schema which consists mostly of definitions and labels (perhaps priority of various requirements may be reordered), since it is self-evident and the only issues one may have are a matter of taste. I happen to like it since is very useful analytical tool for troubleshooting and disentangling otherwise perplexing semantic tangles such as those often encountered in interpretations of Quantum Theory (that's the literature where I picked this scheme from). You objected to "algorithmic" attribute of (M), a term which you define more narrowly than I do (my semantics classify as algorithmic any procedure which can be programmed into a computer or an android robot or any other computer controlled devices if it requires actions in the real world). Hence, there wasn't anything to correct or retract about any of that either. If you wish to have the last word, that's fine with me, I will leave it at what was said above. Tag edited, KFnightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Chance Ratcliff you might be interested in this: Phenotypic Plasticity - Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA Lizard Plasticity - March 2013 http://biota-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/lizard-plasticity.htmlbornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

nightlight @191, In #178 I suggested that you provide a quote to support your assertion that ID concedes that random mutations can account for all of microevolution. Specifically you asserted,
That is actually another common misstep by ID proponents — they needlessly concede that “random” mutation completely explains “micro-evolution”.
Are you able to support that assertion by providing a relevant quote from a major ID proponent? You went on to say,
Hence, by conceding “randomness” attribute of observed spontaneous mutations, ID proponents are setting themselves to have to accept any genetic novelty that can be observed to happen spontaneously in the lab or in nature as being result of “random” mutation (such as rapid adaptations of those isolated lizards on an Adriatic island recently).
This is not the case. Point mutations caused by copying errors occur during DNA replication. This fact is made implicit by the presence of multiple error correction mechanisms for replication which each have a less-than-perfect effect in correcting errors. For changes that can be wrought by a point mutation, it's acceptable to presume a point mutation as the cause, when no other cause is implicated. For changes that are the likely result of a signalling process, such as a dietary shift in lizards, and which require alterations much more significant than a couple of point mutations can achieve, there's no good reason to credit point mutations. It does not follow that accepting random mutations as a potential cause for small changes that can occur as the result of replication errors, means that any changes that do occur, no matter how rapidly and how complex, are the result of random processes.Chance Ratcliff_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

nightlight
I cringe because mixing a perfectly valid empirical observation (the ID design detection) allows those who don’t like the philosophical or religious implications, to disqualify it as non-science since it claims to infer the “mind” or “consciousness”, which is not scientifically valid (within present natural science which lacks a model of ‘mind stuff’ and objective empirical way to detect it).
There is no reason why a philosopher of science, who is commenting on the relationship between science and philosophy, should remain silent about the connection simply because anti-ID partisans will distort it. William Dembski did the same thing when he compared design thinking to the "Logos theory of the Gospel." ID proponents cannot prevent self-serving critics from willfully misrepresenting what they say. In his final decision at the Dover trial, John Judge Jones deceptively mis-characterized Behe's observation that ID is "consistent with religion" and reframed it as ID "depends on religion" in order to justify his false claim that ID is a faith-based methodology. In fact, sometimes B is implied by (or consistent with) A even though B does not strictly follow from A in a scientific sense. We need more public education about the relationship between philosophy, science, and theology, not less. More importantly, we need more public education about the difference between a scientific inference and its religious/philosophical implications.
The only thing that ID design detection in biology implies is that intelligent process (or agent) produced those artifacts, not whether such process or agent had a mind or consciousness as Meyer claims.
As long as Meyer is using the word "imply" rather than the word "infer," he is making a perfectly valid observation. In each known case of design, a mind (not simply an agent) was, indeed, present; so it is reasonable, though not scientifically demonstrable, to suggest that a mind was responsible for biological design. There is nothing new about any of this. From the expanding universe, for example, one can only "infer" a Big Bang, but the "implication" of a First Cause Creator is obviously present. That is why non-Theists first attacked the theory. The "implications" were, and are, obvious.
Neither Stephen Meyer, nor anyone else, has any way of demonstrating scientifically even that his wife has “mind”, who is in front of him and telling him she has it, let alone claiming to infer that something no one has ever observed has it.
Given the distinction I have just made, why would you continue to conflate the scientific demonstration with the philosophical implication of that demonstration by using the word "scientific demonstration" to characterize the implication?StephenB_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

BA77, I don't think that's what he's (she's?) done. First, he's separated "planckian networks" from "space-time-matter-energy" by arguing that these behaviors of phenomena are orchestrated by intelligence and by pointing out that the "intelligent behavior" inherent in "planckian networks" is like the behavior associated with gravity: it's a given. IOW, the motivating force or property of "planckian networks" cannot be "caused by" space-time-matter-energy, because the behaviors and commodities we call space, time, matter and energy are generated and orchestrated by planckian networks toward a "goal" that is an extension of the "given" intelligent nature of planckian networks. Second, he's deliberately avoided (as far as I can tell) making any claims about "consciousness" other than arguing that the term is unnecessary and problematic for an ID argument or explanation. It is the "given" nature of planckian networks that philosophically require willful purpose (demiurge), but do not require it for a scientific description of what occurs. Why an intelligent process pursues X is one thing; the process by which it achieves X is another. NL is offering a scientific description of how intelligence moves matter down a path towards X, not why - ultimately - intelligent planckian networks with such a goal should exist in the first place. IMO, consciousness is the intersection of will and intelligence; will directs computational intelligence at all/various levels to organize matter & energy giving form to the void, which provides a perspective where consciousness can reside. I'm just organizing these thoughts on the fly here as I attempt to process what NL is saying. I could be completely mistaken about what he means, but frankly I'm enjoying tooling around with some of the concepts here.William J Murray_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Nightlight: I played through grad school, got to USCF 2100 (expert rating).
I’m talking about a totally different level of chess. I was a professional tournament player for many years. I have known the top players of the world and many still know me. The point I was making is this. These days everyone uses computers in order to produce opening novelties; while preparing for upcoming games. I have co-analyzed opening positions with the best. And they all know when the computer assessment is of importance and when it is not. They all ignore computer assessments in the certain kind of strategically positions. Many times computer moves are laughed at by strong players – ridiculed. Only amateurs think that computers master all kinds of positions. So again, when ‘overview’ – which springs from consciousness – is required, there is nobody home in the computer. The computer is good at calculating combinations and nothing else.Box_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Of semi related note: Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen? - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: While there are many complex and diverse movements of mind as we speak, it is fair to say very generally that we first have an idea, inchoate though it may be, and then we seek to capture and clothe this idea in words. Each word gains its full meaning — becomes the word it now is — through the way it is conjoined with other words under the influence of the originating idea. The word simply didn't exist as this particular word before — as a word with these nuances of meaning. So an antecedent whole (an idea) becomes immanent in and thereby transforms and constitutes its parts (words), making them what they are. In terms of active agency, it is less that the parts constitute the whole than the other way around. http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/mqual/ch03.htm#fn3.0bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

But alas William, what prevents his 'science' from collapsing into epistemological failure since he has, as far as I can tell, defined consciousness as co-existent with space-time matter-energy? Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

BA77, I find his bottom-up, scientific description of "how intelligence works and orders the universe" fully compatible with a top-down philosophical perspective if one views the former as the 3-dimensional sequenced view of a 4-dimensional eternal state. He's not saying that consciousness or free will doesn't exist; he's saying there is no need for it in a scientific, computational intelligence explanation of fine-tuning and the advent of life. That doesn't mean consciousness/free will isn't necessary philosophically; it's just not a necessary part of the scientific description of how intelligence acts in the world. The anti-IDists are always clamoring for an agent-to-matter mechanism for intelligent manipulation; NL has just served one up. Unless I'm misunderstanding him. He can certainly correct me if I'm off-base with my interpretation.William J Murray_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

WJM (198) One of us has invented a new theory :) If it turns out that I am the creative one, I will immediately retract 'my invention'.Box_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

William J Murray???
That’s not really what I’m getting from reading NL’s material.
HUH??? Is there some prequel to this Matrix movie that you know about that explains all the gaping holes in his plot?bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

@ Correction: The title should have been 'Nightline’s panpsychism in layman terms'.Box_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Box, That's not really what I'm getting from reading NL's material. Sure, a "small section" of the planckian network might be appropriately termed "primitive" as far as intelligence is concerned, but then so could a few brain cells and synapses. Examined from the perspective of the breadth of the cosmos, the full planckian network represents a kind of absolute intelliigence, with as much computational power as there can exist as far as the universe is concerned. NL has already said that such planckian networks essentially exist "outside" (or below?) the physical space-time continuum (correct me if I'm misrpresenting, NL), so we can look at the planckian network (universal mind) from the perspective of omniscient intelligence that exists as a whole outside of space and time, with the universal computational power to generate and maintain what would be - to us - miraculous rearrangements of matter - such as the advent of a fine-tuned universe and life. Taken in this context, this universal mind is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent in their logically acceptable forms - what can be known, the planckian universal mind knows; what can be done, it can do. From its "eternal" or "outside space-time" perspective, the "evolution" of mind from bottom up is really no more than an eternally existent gradient through a 4th physically existent dimension we experience as "time". As an analogy, a person on a moving walkway in a long narrow corridor, who is unaware that he is moving, passes from a dark area through increasing light to a well lit area; to him, it seems that the light got more and more bright as time went by. But both the light and dark areas always exist at opposite ends of the hallway. IOW, NL's bottom-up explanation is well suited for scientific purposes, but it does not contradict the philosophical perspective of reality as a top-down ordered system created by god. The "bottom-up" perspective is just what the progress of the universe looks like from the perspective of time-bound observers like us.William J Murray_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Nightline’s pantheism in layman terms: It is a bottom-up explanation of reality. Already at the smallest scale (elemental entities) we find primitive intelligence and consciousness. Each level designs and self-organizes the next level. Each level is more conscious (composite consciousness) and more intelligent than the previous level. Everything proceeds unsupervised and by self-learning. At the ground level we find ‘Planckian elemental entities’, who are conscious and intelligent in a primitive way. They design and self-organize into the next level. Planckian networks, who are more intelligent (additive intelligence) and have a broader consciousness (composite consciousness). They design and self-organize into several distinct forms of the next level. The next level is photons, quarks etc. These are in fact super intelligent and very conscious entities only comparable to super computers. Of course they also design and organize themselves into various next levels. As we all know it can go to all sorts of directions from here. One possibility is that photons and quarks design and self-organize into biochemical networks. This is of course a much higher level of consciousness and intelligence. Biochemical networks are able to run internal models to invent body plans. The next step is self-organization into human beings. Any questions?Box_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

NL:
StephenB #184 "Why would you cringe? The process by which the scientific inference to design is made is not synonymous with the philosophical/religious implications that may follow from it. There are no indicators for “mind” or “consciousness” in ID methodology-only the inferred presence of an intelligent agent." NL: "I cringe because mixing a perfectly valid empirical observation (the ID design detection) allows those who don’t like the philosophical or religious implications, to disqualify it as non-science since it claims to infer the “mind” or “consciousness”, which is not scientifically valid (within present natural science which lacks a model of ‘mind stuff’ and objective empirical way to detect it).",,
Yet,,,
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' Eugene Wigner receives his Nobel Prize for Quantum Symmetries - video 1963 http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1111
Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
Further notes:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13). “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)
bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

NL, there are reasons why you can't exclude Theistic 'mind stuff' from science. One reason why you can't exclude Theistic 'mind stuff' from science is that the foundation of modern science is built upon the epistemology of Theistic 'mind stuff'. Particularly it is built upon the epistemology of the Christian version of Theistic 'Mind stuff':
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Origin of Science Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a patheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle's works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle's works in Latin.. As we will see below, the break-through that began science was a Christian commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo (On the Heavens).,, Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. …. The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Please note the 'contingency' pillar of modern science NL. For in your relabeled version of science (where Theistic 'mind stuff' is not considered scientific) you have what you have called a 'last Russian doll' which can't be opened at the beginning of the universe. Well NL, science, as it is properly practiced (not as it is practiced in your imagination), could care less that you don't want to look in that 'last Russian doll', and demands that a rational explanation be given for why the universe exists. And it is here, at the beginning of the universe, that the epistemological strength of Theism comes shining through and the abject epistemological failure of all other worldviews, which shun such Theistic 'mind stuff', is exposed:
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Dr. Gordon's astute observation in his last powerpoint is here: The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
Further notes:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: 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.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49 Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation# The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply