PZ open cut quote mines

_{Mark

June 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

PZ has a lot to say. I present some gems below for your education.

I’m sure that I have some irrational beliefs of my own. I have no idea what they are. It’s not holding irrational beliefs that makes you an idiot. It’s holding the irrational beliefs and demanding that those be imposed on everyone else.

Nobody has convinced me that God exists. That’s not going to happen.

Science is the answer. I’m sorry; you may be a very devout religious person, but praying is not going to solve the world’s problems. It never has. We’re living in an enlightenment, which is fuelled by rational thinking and science. Science is the answer.

I’m buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. There’s nothing we’re saying that Betrand Russell didn’t say. This is all the same old stuff. The only difference is that we’ve got the primal scream therapy of atheism. New atheists are the people who shout and yell a lot about this stuff. But it’s the same old stuff that atheists have been talking about for years and years.

Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals.

I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)

Comments

Driver you state: 'Evolution is nothing like monkeys at keyboards. It is incremental and not at all random.' What??? So not even the variation is random??? But as to 'incremental', That's the neo-Darwinian fairy-tale, the problem for you is to ACTUALLY scientifically prove that 'incremental' steps, one tiny step added to another tiny step, can climb Mount Improbable as the neo-Darwininian conjecture maintains: Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ ===================== Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 etc.. etc...bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Driver you state: 'It all depends how you define “functional information”, doesn’t it?' Well Driver, why don't we use, Nobel recipient, Jack Szostak's definition for functional information??? Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors - 2007 Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,, http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/ Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html ======================== Monkey Theory Proven Wrong: Excerpt: A group of faculty and students in the university’s media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then, they waited. At first, said researcher Mike Phillips, “the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it. “Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard,” added Phillips, who runs the university’s Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies. Eventually, monkeys Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan produced five pages of text, composed primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in — not quite literature. http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/monkeysandtypewriters051103.htm ====================== etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

KF, Evolution is nothing like monkeys at keyboards. It is incremental and not at all random. I have yet to see a demonstration that dFSCI is produced by intelligence but not by natural processes. So it has not been shown that dFSCI is a sufficient condition for intelligent intentional agents. Neither has it been shown, that exhibiting dFSCI is a necessary condition for life. I am interested as to how dFSCI relates to CSI. Although, as yet, I have not been able to find that rigorous definition of CSI in the comment 34 you have linked to as an answer. Perhaps you could simply reproduce the part that is the rigorous definition?Driver_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Driver: Though your own points are tangential, they are at least in the general ambit of the blog. I see your:
ba, I say that the null hypothesis is that material processes are sufficient [i.e. to be sources of digitally coded, functionally specific complex linguistic or algorithmic information].
The challenge is to show this, empirically and repeatably, without inadvertently sneaking in intelligent direction through the back door. We can show that dFSCI is routinely produced by active intelligences, with an Internet full of accessible examples. Your side, after years of asking, has yet to meet the simple challenge of rising aboov e a materialistic a priori to show chance and necessity creating dFSCI without the intervention or direction or design by intelligence. The infinite monkeys analysis also strongly supports the conclusion that as a practical matter you cannot. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: DM is of course tossing out red herring after red herring led away to a forest of strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems awaiting some firebrand rhetoric to set ablaze, bitterly polarising and poisoning the atmoshpere.
(Side-bar: And surely s/he knows or should know that this is not the proper forum for a theological debate over Biblical ethics; there are many such out there if s/he were really interested in solid, carefully considered answers, starting with the already linked sites BA provided for us. But the onward rhetorical talking points on slavery and related issues are already revealing. The trick in all of this is that this is actually a disguised dilemma: ignore the points and the ad hominem laced strawmen stand unopposed. Answer them and UD stands indicted as "creationists in cheap tuxedos." I choose to do neither: let us see what grounds other than appealing to popular opinion, rhetoric or feelings, can DM give to ground moral claims? ANS: None, That is, what we are seeing is radical relativism rooted in our culture in evolutionary materialism and in its inherent amorality of might and manipulation make for perceptions of right, which if backed up by state power of whatever dominant faction, are as much of morality as you can get. Exactly as Plato warned against, and exactly as my ancestors suffered from at the hands of amoral and greedy power elites who had no answer on the merits to a Wilberforce, but instead subjected him to the most nasty and vicious personal attacks then when that failed, resorted to delay tactics for a generation. The sound answer instead is that the fact of morality points to the soundness of a worldview that can ground OUGHT in its root IS. The only credible answer to such is creation-anchored theism where the creator and ground of being is inherently good, and so orders the world as to reflect that moral character. From this we can see that there is an IS who grounds OUGHT, and who in the course of moral government -- of a world of finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed creatures with the awesome gift of freedom, the basis of love which is in turn the root of all genuine virtue -- calls us to repentance and reformation, but along the way will adapt to the hardness of men's hearts so that amelioration and reform -- but not suicide based on willfully ignoring or distorting the obvious foundation of family -- mark the path of sound civilisation.)
What s/he, therefore, has tellingly failed to address is the fundamental problem of evolutionary materialism, as a system that has in it no IS that can ground OUGHT. Materialists and fellow travellers have moral feelings and even reason morally, but when their system is pushed, it has no firm ground so is captive to a radical relativism that the manifests over and over again. Accordingly, it falls prey to whoever can seize control of institutions of influence, and pump out clever Plato's Cave manipulative rhetoric, regardless of the consequences of the civilisation. And it is no secret that I hold the view that on this track our civilisation is obviously heading over the cliff. Getting back to the focus for this thread, the OP, we can see much the same in PZM's fulminations, especially:
There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals. I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent. [Namely, Jonathan Wells, who dared to expose the rotten foundations of several of the major icons so often used to indoctrinate unsuspecting students and the wider public in evolutionary materialism under the false colours of science, starting with Haeckel's embryological fraud.])
This abusive and amoral faux outrage rhetoric by PZM that manipulates moral feelings is exactly the sort of willfully slanderous polarising Alinskyite rhetorical pattern that I have warned against here. Surely, we can do better than this. If we care about our civilisation, even if not our souls. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Driver, whether you believe it or not, you yourself have ‘performed a miracle’ when you typed your post, for you have exceeded, in your generation of functional information, what can reasonably be expected from the entire material processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe.
ba, I say that the null hypothesis is that material processes are sufficient. After all, it is Abel who is positing the extra entity/process. So where do we go from here?
If you don’t think what you have done is a miracle, from a materialistic point of view, then simply show me just one example of purely material processes doing generating functional information.
It all depends how you define "functional information", doesn't it? It is trivial to show that material processes can generate information.Driver_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

EDM: This is beginning to look more and more like a further threadjacking attempt. I would advise you to do a little more study, as already noted. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

BA77: That CARM "defense" of the Bible re slavery is not very good: http://carm.org/slavery 1: Yes, a slave is the property of his master - that's pretty much the definition of a slave: You're property. You belong to somebody. 2: This is a REALLY bad defense. "The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave" and they quote Ex 21:20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." That's very good and reflects well on the Bible. Except that Ex 21:21 says, "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." So the Bible says you CAN beat your slave to death, but he has to linger a day or two before he dies. And I have a feeling that if he dies right away, it's just a fine. Anybody know? 3 & 4: The slave is a member of the family and has to rest on the Sabbath. Good. 5: The slave is required to participate in religious obsrvances. There's a few big problems here. First of all, "participation" seems to mean "circumcision". You have to circumcise the slave. Regardless of how the salve feels about having his genitals mutilated. (And without anesthetic!) That is one religious practice I would prefer to skip, especially as an adult and without anesthetic. 6: The Bible prohibits extradition of slaves. Very good - except that the New Testament book of Philemon consists of a letter from Paul to a slave owner concerning a slave Paul is sending back to him. 7: Hebrew slaves can only be kept six years. True. If they're male. Females never have to be freed, nor do foreign slaves of either sex. 8: A freed slave recieves gifts to help him survive. Very good, but if you gave him a wife, you keep the wife and any children he might have fathered. And only male Hebrews have to be set free. CARM's defense is probably as good as anybody's, but the Bible and it's alleged Objective Morality don't come off very well.dmullenix_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

KF: Wow, you are really hard to parse! When you say, "...proceed to try for an ad hominem by wrenching some OT case-law remarks out of their context to suggest the now all too commonplace “the God of the Bible is a moral monster” new atheist talking point.", are you talking about where I quoted the Bible verses? If so, perhaps you should remember that "ad hominem" means "to the man", not "quoting the Bible". I made two points and you haven't really answered them. In fact, your "answers" are a little ad-hominish. First, morality isn't really all that hard, at least to a first approximation. As an example, most people would say that having somebody stick a knife in their eye was a pretty bad thing and that if the knife sticker was doing that for the heck of it and not because they were eye doctors, then they were pretty evil. I know, there are lots of hard questions about morality and some questions probably don't have good answers, but some of them are pretty obvious and shouldn't cause anybody any problems. Similarly, a few minute's Bible reading will show any fair minded person that you can't depend on that book for an absolute morality because there's too much stuff in it that's just plain nasty and immoral. Maybe some other religions don't have that problem, but I can't think of any right off the top of my head. Buddhism maybe? Not that you can't pick and choose your Bible verses and come up with a fairly decent morality, but you're necessarily depending on your own human abilities to do so, which means it's not an absolute morality. When you speak of an increasingly amoral culture, are you taking into consideration that slavery is illegal in most of the world today and that when somebody kills somebody else because they worship the wrong god, most of the world condemns their actions? Personally, I think that's an improvement. I'll trade that for stopping gay marriages any day.dmullenix_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

BA: Thanks. Looks like I have to register. G PS: Here are some of my own remarks on slavery and the Judaeo-Christian worldview, in the context of liberation and government. CARM and Copan in your linked list are a good start for the fair-minded.kairosfocus_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus and dmullenix, "coincidentally" the first site I serendipitously ran across this morning deals directly with the old 'slaves and the bible' issue: Slaves In The Bible - 8 Quick Resources http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/06/slavery-in-bible-8-quick-resources.html ========================= Here is a song you may enjoy kf: Courageous - Casting Crowns http://www.godtube.com/music-videos/bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

F/N: I have made a for the record post on the Lewontin NYRB 1997 cite, here. I trust that this will provide sufficient warrant for the fair minded onlooker to see the balance of the matter on the merits, and that it will thus also allow this thread to return to its proper focus on what Mr Myers did, especially to Mr Wells.kairosfocus_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

DM: You begin my acknowledging "I don’t know much about this is-ought stuff" and then proceed to try for an ad hominem by wrenching some OT case-law remarks out of their context to suggest the now all too commonplace "the God of the Bible is a moral monster" new atheist talking point. On the first, pardon some frank words: you would be better advised to study before speaking. There is -- as Hawthorne aptly summarised -- indeed a major gap for evolutionary materialistic views on warranting OUGHT based on the ISes that that view permits, as well as the similar gap it faces on warranting the credibility of a knowing, reasoning mind. Both of these were already discussed and linked. (You should be asking yourself why it is that these commonplace results are not commonly known. This will point you to the shameless heart of our C21 version of Plato's Cave.) As to the moral monster thesis, this simply reflects new atheist atmosphere poisoning, so as a first comment -- the points you make are as usual tangential and polarising towards a turnabout immoral equivalency accusation [BTW, as a Jamaican, I have a history where the Christian faith at the hands of Evangelical dissenters was a major part of our liberation from slavery, starting with the likes of Wilberforce, Buxton, Knibb, Equiano and Sharpe . . . ] -- I simply point you here on the core of Biblical morality. As the ghosts of over 100 million victims of atheistical and evolutionist regimes over the past 100 years moan out, you would be well advised to pause and reflect carefully on this [onward links are there], from Plato' The Laws Bk X, who saw first hand what the rise of similar evolutionary materialism -- this is an ancient view -- already did in Athens 2,400 years ago: __________ >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> _________ Being morally governend creatures made in God's image and with an implanted conscience, evolutionary materialists have moral intuitions and impulses like the rest of us, but we must beware of the destructive power of an increasingly amoral culture. As the apostle warned in C1:
Eph 4:17 . . . this I say and solemnly testify in [the name of] the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the heathen (the Gentiles) do in their perverseness [in the folly, vanity, and emptiness of their souls and the futility] of their minds. 18Their [a]moral understanding is darkened and their reasoning is beclouded. [They are] alienated (estranged, self-banished) from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the ignorance (the want of knowledge and perception, the willful blindness) that is [b]deep-seated in them, due to their hardness of heart [to the insensitiveness of their moral nature]. 19In their spiritual apathy they have become callous and past feeling and reckless and have abandoned themselves [a prey] to unbridled sensuality, eager and greedy to indulge in every form of impurity [that their depraved desires may suggest and demand].
Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

KF: Wow, that's a lot of bad philosophy! I don't know much about this is-ought stuff, but a good first approximation for a decent philosophy would be something like, "Whatever hurts or injures a human is bad, allowing unnecessary pain or injury is evil." A good second approximation would be something like, "Whatever hurts or injures a sentient anything ..." What you want to watch out for is basing your philosophy on religion. For instance, as a black man in the Caribbean, you must be well aware of the disasterous consequences of verses like: LEVITICUS 25:44 'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. That must have provided a lot of comfort to the pius and enterprising Christian slavers who purchased your ancestors and transported them across the Atlantic, to die in the cane fields without ever seeing their loved ones again. The African tribes who used to raid rival tribes for slaves to sell to the Christians undoubtedly got their morals from their religions too. As did the Muslims who ran an equally large slaver operation in their sphere of influence. Of course, here in the US, the slave states quickly became the Bible Belt when they discovered that the Bible explicitely authorized and approved of the chattel slavery they were practicing. It wasn't just the American South that felt that way, of course. A mob of Christians chased the great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison through the streets of Boston and he narrowly escaped lynching at their hands. Religious morality doesn't just fail the slavery test though. Think of how many have died because of this verse: EXODUS 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. or this one: EXODUS 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Sounds almost Islamic in its evil, doesn't it?dmullenix_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Isn't it curious that the folk who go around loudly insisting that there really is a real distinction between 'methodological naturalism’ and 'philosophical naturalism' seem never to grant even the possibility of a corresponding distinction between 'methodological designism’ and 'philosophical designism'?Ilion_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Driver, whether you believe it or not, you yourself have 'performed a miracle' when you typed your post, for you have exceeded, in your generation of functional information, what can reasonably be expected from the entire material processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe. If you don't think what you have done is a miracle, from a materialistic point of view, then simply show me just one example of purely material processes doing generating functional information. By the way if do demonstrate as such you will falsify a null hypothesis; The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For the Intelligent Design Inference - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651 ,,, Driver, to get to the gist of what it means to be 'inferring a miracle', most people consider defying time and space to be a 'supernatural and miraculous event, I know I certainly do, and yet the actions of quantum mechanics blatantly defies any time and space constraints,,,, Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 Double-slit experiment Excerpt: In 1999 objects large enough to see under a microscope, buckyball (interlocking carbon atom) molecules (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times that of a proton), were found to exhibit wave-like interference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment This following site offers a more formal refutation of materialism: Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm It seems fairly obvious the actions observed in the double slit experiment, as well as other experiments, are only possible if our reality has its actual, ultimate, basis in a 'higher transcendent dimension': Explaining The Unseen Higher (spiritual) Dimension - Dr. Quantum - Flatland - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4119478 The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world 'folds and collapses' into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) etc... etc... ,,,I don't know Driver how much more do you want??? miracles abound all around us in our everyday lives as well as in our science, I guess it all comes down to if a person is big enough to humble themselves before God and realize that He pervades all of reality!!!bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Driver as to ‘methodological naturalism’,,, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. The problem is how would we use science to infer miracles? It's a genuine problem, I grant you. One that no-one has a solution for. If you know of a scientific test for inferring miracles, then that would be a marvellous scientific revolution. I agree with you that science is not materialism.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Driver as to 'methodological naturalism',,, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins agrees: "The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." Richard Dawkins The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml For a quick overview, here are a few: 1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9)- 7. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 9. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 10. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 11. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 12. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 13. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 14. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 15. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - references: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity: General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & the Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070355 Last, but certainly not least, as a Christian I would be very remiss if I failed to ask you to accept the free gift of eternal life from the living God who created this universe and all life in it. In fact, almighty God has made a very clear path for us "fallen human adults" to completely reconcile with Him so we may be able to stand before Him in heaven. We do this by humbly accepting what He has done for us through Christ on the cross so that we may be able to stand in the glory of the presence of almighty God in heaven (For our God is an all-consuming fire - Hebrews 12:29). In fact by accepting Christ into your heart, you will be cleansed spotless of your sins in the presence of almighty God. So how about it, Will you accept this priceless gift of Jesus Christ into your heart today so you may able to receive the priceless gift of eternal life in heaven? --- Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.' My Beloved One - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200171 John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The Disciples - How They Died - Would A Man Die For Something He Knew Was A Lie? - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4193404 ------------------------------------ Evanescence - "Bring Me To Life" - Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM Wake Me O Lord Wake me O Lord from this sleep of mine To the living wonders of creation that are so fine With a "Oh, that’s nice" I shall not content NO, only when You speak shall my heart be spent Others may suffice their cravings of Awe With an "Oh Well" shrug of the wonders they saw But I know You are in each piece of reality Yes, in the wind, the stars, and even the sea So this vow to You I make No rest in me my heart will take Till Your face and hands again I see In the many waters of reality For the truth be known to You indeed That if I see You not with my heart and head I’m not really born again, but instead am dead Does God Exist? Finding a Good God in an Evil World http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

the key question being begged is the a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism
Methodological naturalism is the correct term. If you have a new scientific paradigm, all you have to do is explain how it will work. Simply giving up investigation is not scientific, so we need a better way than that. I have been answering your question 1. Question 3 is asking me to make an argument from authority. Question 2:
can you kindly summarise or cite the view made by Newton on the orderliness of nature
You have already cited Newton at length. I don't know why you want me to do it too, unless you want to create here another digital copy of his work. As an argument from authority, your authority figure is rather mildewed. If Newton had come up with a means to test divine hypotheses then you would have a genuine argument instead of the fallacy of argument from authority. Question 4 was presupposition.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Driver: Now that you have established the rhetorical pattern that is developing, enough for onlookers to see for themselves what is happening, I have little interest in further tangents that are all further distractive on what was plainly a distraction to begin with. I will note that the case of empirical investigation of miracles is tied to the study of intelligent acts [up to and including he formation of the cosmos], and that we already have seen that the key question being begged is the a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism that was documented from Lewontin and three other evolutionary materialist sources -- observe how that was of course not touched on in the haste to make a turnabout rhetorical point. I simply note en passant that the Shroud date you cite is a very challenged date, and leave that to BA 77, as that is not my interest other than to simply document that a claimed miracle is here subject to empirical test. And, as noted if the descriptions are accurate, the case of the interview with Thomas would have constituted a crude case of a medical examination of a miracle. Even if this was not an actual event, it is sufficient to show the possibilities. I note that the four questions I asked have again been dodged, which does not say much of the direction you wish to carry discussion. So, we can note enough for onlookers to see for themselves and go on. Good evening GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

our cosmos shows signs of having been fine tuned for C-chemistry cell based life
So in science we look for laws (regularities) explaining these apparent fine-tunings. At what point should we give up looking for laws? What is the correct period of time? In fact there is no correct period of time. As soon as we stop looking for lawful explanations we stop being scientific. Since miracles are by definition suspension of natural laws, we cannot find laws explaining miracles.
a long list of studies of unquestionably scientific nature on the Shroud of Turin
I do not deny that scientific studies can be performed on the shroud. An aside, but the most pertinent scientific study of the shroud dates it to the 13th Century. As for the scientific studies on the shroud, at what point do we conclude that the shroud image does not have a natural origin? Why don't we conclude that now? Would another fifty years of not knowing how the image got there suffice? No, because as soon as we stop looking for lawful explanations we stop being scientific.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

F/N: In anticipation of an onward drumbeat talking point, I have in fact now explicitly addressed this snippet in the linked. There is no OBJECTIVE or justifiable reason to conclude that the citation I have given distorts Lewontin's claims or that the clip from beck would justify a priori evooutionary materialism imposed on the definition of science, which is the highlight of the quote. And in fact the extra part simply further brings out the problems already highlighted. I have also retained an added note on the woman who doubted the moon shot, from an earlier exchange. CONCLUSION: My estimation now is that all of this smacks of a turnabout rhetorical attempt now that PZM was caught out in a slander of Jonathan Wells. --> Onlookers, let us see if the drum beaters will be serious enough to address the facts now in evidence, including the update as given and linked. This will tell us a lot about what we are dealing with, but so far this looks like more ALINSKY TACTICS.kairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Driver: Let us look again at the claim by Lewontin that you are now softening into, well how can a miracle be accounted for in science.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
In short the issue here is that L & B imagine with many others that a theistic world would be a chaos not a cosmos. Such is a rationalist myth common in our time; one that resists mere correction on mere facts and logic. And yes, in a chaos science would not be possible, but the theistic worldview does not entail a chaos. As I showed, with specific links, only to be brushed aside as though I had said nothing, byu both MG and you. Do you see why I am pointing to a problem of insistent ad hominem laced strawman caricature on your part? You will kindly notice that my response and questions highlighted what theists have held for 2,000 and more years, and that I have cited and pointed to significant remarks by a founding figure of modern science who happened to be a Biblical theist. That odd chap called Isaac, who has a few laws named after him. Lewontin was wrong, and Beck was wrong, wrong in ways that reflected a profound ignorance of theists and theism, not to mention the inconvenient little fact that modern science was born in a Judaeo-Christian culture and was NURTURED by it. (No, the Christians c 1490 did not think the world was flat, as can be easily shown. Copernicus was actually a cleric. Kepler was devout. And Galileo's troubles had more to do with politics and his betrayal of a former supporter who was now a Pope under a lot of pressure. Newton was a strongly philosophically minded theistic thinker, whose reflections on phil of sci and on epistemology of sci would repay a serious reading today. And more.) And BTW, at least somethings that would be miraculous would be amenable to scientific investigation. If Jesus really rose form death, he could doubtless have been made the subject of a medical examination, and indeed his reported invitation to Thomas to insert fingers into nail holes and hand into side suggests just that. Similarly, our cosmos shows signs of having been fine tuned for C-chemistry cell based life, which would make it quite credible that the cosmos is itself a sign pointing beyond it to a literally super-natural designer. And that would be a miracle that rests on recognising the order and organisation of the cosmos. BA 77 would provide a long list of studies of unquestionably scientific nature on the Shroud of Turin, which is at least possibly empirical evidence of a miracle. North of 150,000 hours of research, much of it with quite sophisticated equipment. And, more would be possible or even actual. In short, there is no reason why any number of possible or actual miracles would leave empirical signs that would be characteristic of there having been something beyond the usual course of nature at work. So, the perception behind the questions and challenges need a serious rethinking. And I think you need to answer the four questions already asked, as a basis for any serious discussion. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

do you understand how serious it is to insistently misrepresent another person or people?
I am commenting on the unfortunately omitted part of the Lewontin quote. Certainly we wouldn't want to misrepresent him, so we should discuss his entire quote, including the part that was unfortunately omitted.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

KF, If the presence of a miracle can be established by scientific means then suggest how. It does not matter if the world is lawlike most of the time, the problem is establishing that the UN-lawlike took place. How do you scientifically measure a purported unlawlike event? In relation to what? I agree with Newton that nature is orderly. What Newton says about a creator is theology not science. Newton does not refute Lewontin's point, since Newton does not propose a means to scientifically measure the presence of his Creator. In fact, as Lewontin points out, if we include miracles in our scientific hypotheses, how can we get from these exceptions to regularities? - regularities being what science studies.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Driver: Are you simply reiterating a convenient talking point, drumbeat fashion as though repetition creates rerality? Next, do you understand how serious it is to insistently misrepresent another person or people? And, what that looks like when it is sustained in the teeth of correction on the merits? Okay, before drawing serious conclusions, let's do a test . . . 1] Let's start with: can you kindly cite or summarise what was said twice above -- and has now been added to the page where I cite Lewontin [since it appears there is yet another drumbeat slander building up] -- on the link between a theistic worldview and the idea that creation will therefore have an orderly lawlike pattern, just one that is open rather than closed? 2] Then, can you kindly summarise or cite the view made by Newton on the orderliness of nature, from not only the general Scholium but Opticks, Query 31? [And yes, I held back something.] 3] Then, can you kindly show why we are to believe Beck and Lewontin over Paul, Peter and Newton, on the actual views of theists and the implications for the possibility of science? 4] Finally, if you have no cogent answers to 1 - 3, but insist on the talking point just above, what does that suggest, why? (Onlookers, this should tell us a lot about the level of discussion we are dealing with.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

What's this about Marx, Stalin and churches? As far as I know, whole Europe is full of churches, we even have synagogues, and mosques with Saudi Arabian funding. We are tolerant, I fell like spelling it out. We have democracy, health care for everybody, we provide for both the unemployed or disabled, secular states, some with full separation between state and church. Even our police, judicial and penitentiary systems are inferior to their American counterparts. Most of us consider religion a personal matter and don't care whether a person is indifferent(a lot are), subscribe to a particular religion, is member of a 'human-ethical' society or just support a human-ethical weltanschauung. Or an atheist, I suppose there are some of that here to. That just isn't an issue here.Cabal_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Of course this is indeed a problem with admitting an omnipotent deity into science. Science looks for regularities. It is difficult to see how a miracle could be established by scientific means. So in this respect Lewontin is right.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Let me pause and take apart a claim on points, for the record: MG: >>To repeat: Without these two sentences, a --> In which Lewontin cites Beck:
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
b --> I repeat, this inadvertently reveals instead:
sophomoric ignorance of the nature of actual theistic beliefs, and makes a direct and improper insinuation of irrationality. But in fact, the main point of the miraculous is not that they are capricious and chaotic but that they are SIGNS — that is the root concept of the term — pointing beyond the usual course of the world. That is, to work as signs, miracles REQUIRE a general and reliable order of reality, a creation in short.
c --> As I went on to cite from Paul and Newton, theism holds that the God who performs miracles as signs that point beyond the ordinary course of the world, does so in a context where he established and sustains that course as Creator and Sustainer. d --> Consequently, for miracles to be discernible there has to be exactly that, a usual pattern of the world. One that is open to its Creator to make changes in specific cases, for his good purposes. e --> And in fact precisely the sort of closed cosmos, uniformitarian naturalism being used to object to theism as a viable worldview in which science can be done, was predicted by the apostle Peter as follows:
2 Peter 3:3To begin with, you must know and understand this, that scoffers (mockers) will come in the last days with scoffing, [people who] walk after their own fleshly desires 4And say, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the forefathers fell asleep, all things have continued exactly as they did from the beginning of creation. 5For they willfully overlook and forget this [fact], that the heavens [came into] existence long ago by the word of God, and the earth also . . . . 7But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been stored up (reserved) for fire, being kept until the day of judgment . . .
your excerpt implies that Lewontin is claiming that science is actively and irrationally anti-religious. f --> It demonstrates an antipathy that sees the theist as irrational and believing in a failed system of "demons" (he plainly cites Sagan's term with approval, not distancing) who would if real create a chaos not a cosmos, it shows that he goes along with the self-refuting belief that science defined materialistically is the only begetter of truth, and it shows that he and the majority of scientists in key positions of influence impose an a priori materialism in these terms:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
f --> this is more than enough, standing on its own, to demonstrate the points claimed: a priori censorship of evolutionary materialism on science, le4ading to a distortion of science's ability to seek and empirically warrant the unfettered truth about our world. g --> It further documents a pattern of irrationality: making a self-refuting epistemological claim on the begetter of knowledge, confusing a question-begging censoring a priori imposition of materialistically redefined science for a self evident truth about the world and accessing truth about it, imposition of a censoring a priori. g --> The blatantly irrational cannot be warranted as rational, and in fact the rest of he passage further indicts the fundamental irrationality at work. (And the caricature about the woman who doubts the moon landing is an example of the worst kind of misrepresenation by unrepresentative extreme case -- von Braun FYI was an evangelical Christian, HE IS THE MAN WHO DESIGNED THE ROCKET THAT WENT TO THE MOON.) In fact, he is explaining h --> He is going on to dig himself further in the hole exactly why the the tools of science cannot be used if an omnipotent entity is postulated to intervene in the physical world. i --> he may indeed believe this, but that simply publicly exposes his ignorance of what theism actually entails, and has long entailed on the subject of science. j --> For instance, I pointed out he logic of miracles as sign. Elsewhere I have discussed as well the need for an orderly, predictable world in which actions have normal consequences, if we are to be accountable creatures responsible before God for our stewardship of the world and our lives. k --> In addition, I took the time to cite both Paul and Newton, which it seems plain you have not bothered to read in your haste to keep on dancing wrong but strong. l --> Let me clip just the first piece of Newton in his General Scholium:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
k --> Observe how Newton draws out the legitimate form of the uniformity principle from the supervenience of the one common Pantokrator who established ans sustains the cosmos. l --> In short, MG, your remarks simply further bring out that you have refused so far to be corrected on mere facts and logic. Please, do better than this. >> Onlookers, see what has been happening over and over again for months? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

So, please - what is the part of that comment 34 which contains the rigorous definition of CSI? Could you just reproduce the relevant part.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply