Home
» Intelligent Design » Quote of the Day
Quote of the Day
| March 6, 2013 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
“I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison? ”
David Berlinski
68 Responses to Quote of the Day
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Maybe biological explanations in general are just different from physical explanations? For one thing, there are not (to my knowledge) any laws of biology, so the fundamental task of biological theories is different in kind from the task of physical theories. The task of a physical theory is to explain why the laws hold, to the extent that they do. That’s not so for biology.
If there are no laws of life, then biological explanations are just different in character than physical laws, and so it’s a mistake to so much as hold them against physical theories, let alone think that biological theories suffer by the comparison.
Physical laws are descriptive; results of observations and thus provisional and subject to revision.
What does that tell us about reductionist ambition?
I would like to propose a biological law – on which we more or less agreed – : *Organisms are organized top-down*.
Maybe biology needs a new paradigm. Maybe the search for bottom-up explanations for life is coming to an end.
Maybe the mistake is the metaphysical naturalistic confinement.
What about the law of biogenesis? Thats a law of biology.
Its supported by every single observation in the history of mankind and not contradicted by any known evidence. I would put it up there with the law of gravity.
Box, I think one of the few things you and I agree upon is that reductionism is intellectually bankrupt. (Granted, that’s a pretty huge thing to agree upon!)
As to whether the top-down organization of living things qualifies as a law, I hesitate — likewise for biogenesis — because I don’t know how such claims can be put into a mathematical form. For while I do think it is true that living things have a top-down, hierarchical organization — indeed, I think it is a necessary truth! — I haven’t the slightest idea how to mathematically represent that truth, and so I’m leery of calling it a law of nature.
KN: “Maybe biological explanations in general are just different from physical explanations?”
AF: “Physical laws are descriptive; results of observations and thus provisional and subject to revision.”
You both fail to grasp that Darwinists assert that natural selection is a “physical explanation” or a “physical law” as you have used those terms. In other words, according to them, natural selection acts as a mechanical necessity in exactly the same way that gravity makes an apple drop to the ground. And the sillier ones will tell you that it is established as well as the laws of gravity. Berlinski is making a point about that silliness. It is good to see you agree with him.
Barry, that’s a perfectly good reason to avoid an Epicurean interpretation of evolutionary theory, but that’s different from the theory per se.
As someone who both has some philosophical training under my belt and understands evolutionary biology fairly well (for a non-specialist), it seems quite clear to me that it would be a category-mistake to call natural selection a law. But one can point that out without rejecting the idea that natural selection plays an important role in producing macroevolutionary patterns, such as speciation.
It is interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
One peculiar thing about the higher dimensional 4-D space time of General Relativity is that it ‘expands equally in all places’:
Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.
And higher (infinite) dimensional quantum mechanics is also very mysterious in that consciousness is found to be the ‘ultimate universal reality’:
Of related note; there is also a mysterious ‘higher dimensional’ component to life:
Of related interest is that mathematics was shown to be incomplete by Godel:
i.e. the ‘truth’ of a mathematical equation is not within the mathematical equation itself but the ‘truthfulness’ of the equation must be imparted to it from God:
Moreover, Godel, who was perhaps Einstein’s closest confidant at Princeton, also had this to say
And when one allows God into math to make it ‘complete’ then one finds a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the infamous ‘theory of everything’:
Maybe not a “law”, but…
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”
Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain
http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/
Certainly more robust and empirically supported than the whole macroevolution thing we keep hearing about..
Berlinski always makes my day. He should be required reading in schools.
In Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment, proved in the lab by several groups,(The Universe We Created), most recently by a group in Vienna (1) using entanglement, quantum mechanics allows us to change the past by our actions (observation) in the present. In Wheeler’s view, the universe exists in a quantum state of possibilities until we “create” it by observing it.
So if we can create the past through our observations in the present, does that mean that we created our own universe retroactively?
Does that mean that ID is right, but that we are our own designers?
Does it mean that as our intelligence grows, we’ll be able to retroactively design a better universe?
Design a better homo sapiens?
1. Xiao-song Ma, Stefan Zotter, Johannes Kofler, Rupert Ursin, Thomas Jennewein, ?aslav Brukner, Anton Zeilinger. Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping. Nature Physics, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS2294
This is the problem you always run into in these debates… poorly defined terms. If by “evolution” we mean “change over time”, then yes, I’d say evolution is exceptionally well established as much as anything else in science that is frequently observed. But if by “evolution” we mean “a process that by itself created life and all that we see around us via random mutation and natural selection”, then no, that’s not established at all.
It’s always amusing to me to read or watch debates around evolution, and it seems as if each opponent is talking about two completely different concepts. That’s the problem with the word “evolution”… it means a lot of different things. I’ve actually never met anyone who opposes evolution across the board. The debate is not and has never been about whether evolution occurs… the debate is about how far one can take the concept in terms of explanatory power. And that ranges from explaining things such as “the frequency of expression of an existing trait within a population” to “the creation of life itself and all it’s diversity”. Two very, very different things.
I disagree, Cheshire. I think the question of evolution can be quite neatly nailed down into two basic topics:
(1) are microevolutionary processes sufficient to explain speciation?
(2) is there anything over and above speciation that needs to be explained?
In watching critics of evolution (whom are not always sympathetic towards design theory, though they often are) talk about “new body plans” and “new cell types”, it strikes me that they think that answer to (2) is not only “yes,” but obviously “yes” — so obviously that they accuse their opponents of prevarication.
What evolution critics have trouble appreciating, I believe, is that as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned, once speciation has been explained, everything has been explained. There’s nothing left. And this is because — and I think this is really important — as far as evolutionary biology is concerned, only species are real. Higher taxa — genera, families, classes, phyla, etc. — those are treated in a purely nominalistic fashion, as mere labels for describing similarities and differences amongst species. So once speciation has been accounted for, there’s nothing left to account for.
I am leaving aside the question of abiogenesis, since it’s not treated as a topic within evolutionary biology.
(Perhaps one could think that the very first life-forms on Earth must have been intelligently designed, but that everything else in the history of life on earth since then proceeded on a strictly naturalistic basis. That idea has furnished the premise of many science-fiction novels and shows, though I don’t know if anyone has defended it as a serious proposition.)
Well there isn’t any mathematics, no equations, for evolutionism, but Darwin did say:
And such things have been demonstrated. Darwin’s theory has broken down.
KN:
Baraminology is OK with speciation. Linneas, in his search for the Created Kind, placed it at the level of Genus. Meaning all of today’s species evolved from those Created Kinds.
KN,
I’d disagree, and i’d do so based on discussions I myself have had. I have a friend who is a marine biologist, and we got into a discussion about this not long ago. At first, she was absolutely stunned that I would question evolution… after awhile, when I explained to her that I didn’t question evolution in terms of “a currently expressed trait becoming more/less frequent based on environmental pressures” but that I did have issues with evolution in terms of “explaining life itself and all diversity of life”, her response was basically “Oh, wait, then we agree”. So this thing we had been debating for 10 minutes was a misunderstanding because we were using different perspectives of the word. So I think it creates a great deal of confusion just based on my own observation.
And that’s the problem – evolution is used to explain so many things up and down the scale that it becomes extremely confusing because people rarely stop to define their terms. No one questions, say, the classic textbook example of black moths becoming more frequent than white moths because their environment makes it harder for predators to detect them. But when evolution is questioned, sometimes it’s supporters think that such generally accepted and observed events are what are being questioned, which is not the case. It’s not the core concept being debate … it’s the extrapolation of the concept and whether it’s being used to explain things outside of it’s explanatory limit.
It’s not my intention here to argue whether evolution explains speciation (not sure that was really your intention either)… I simply wanted to point out the confusion I frequently observe with the term evolution itself.
The operative word for the day is SCIENCE.
Science is not just ordinary investigation.
Its a high standard of investigation.
Therfore YEC and ID should focus intellectual scrutiny upon whether evolutionary biology is a theory or just a hypothesis lacking evidence!
Not attack evolutionists evidence but is the ‘evidence” from scientific biological investigation.
If evolution is not true it couldn’t be well supported!
If it claims to be science then upon the science it either fails or us critics fail to see the science.
Science ain’t just another word for being careful. Its a methodology with rules of conduct.
Evolutionists name your top four biological scientific evidences for evolution Darwin style.
I have a hypthesis they can’t do it!
KN @7:
By “natural selection plays an important role” I presume you mean that certain physical processes (mutations, for example, coupled with the various vagaries and hazards of the natural environment) lead to a particular result. And if that result happens to be a stochastically higher rate of reproduction we attach a label to the result and call it “natural selection.”
That would just reinforce Barry’s point (and David’s as well) here. Then it would be the case that, no, Darwin’s theory is not as solid as ‘any in science’ because the nature of the field doesn’t allow it to be so.
KN @12:
And this is precisely the problem. This is precisely the intellectual trap so many evolutionary biologists have fallen into.
It is obviously clear to anyone who stops to think about it objectively for a few moments that the kinds of microevolutionary processes that are observed do not necessarily lead to all larger scale changes. The only reason some folks are unable to grasp this very simple point is because they are blind to it — either due do poor training, an a priori philosophical commitment, or simply not having thought about it carefully.
You are correct about this much: For the committed evolutionist, everything is viewed as just another manifestation of a single process of evolution that has been going on since the beginning of time. This is one of the main reasons the word “evolution” is so incredibly slippery and is used to mean wildly-different things. In the evolutionary mindset it is all one and the same.
Once we escape from that intellectual blunder, however, it becomes clear that it is not all one and the same.
BA 77: Why not repost 8 above over in the pot stirring thread? KF
KN & Cheshire:
First, what is a species? THAT, too, is up for significant debate.
Indeed, I think that even young earth creationists will accept that the “kind” is much broader than what is usually meant by species, with the family being a rough level. I have often cited Red Deer varieties, which per discovery of free inter-fertility in New Zealand (on planting populations) seems to include North American Elk. I also recall how some years ago, the Rainbow Trout/Steelhead, was reclassified as in effect a variety of Pacific Salmon.
Next, in order to create the very first cell based life’s body plan, some serious, tightly integrated functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information has to be explained and explained without recourse to the favourite out of chance variation and differential reproductive success of sub populations. For, the mechanism of reproduction or replication is itself part of what has to be explained.
Of course, the usual side track here is: that is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory.
Rather conveniently, is my retort — let us duck explaining the root of the tree of life we are appealing to.
This case,such diversions notwithstanding, brings to focus the fact that the only observed, inductively well warranted causal explanation of FSCO/I, is design. And so as of right, design is — artificial exclusionary tactics notwithstanding — on the table from the very root of the tree of life.
Once that is seen, we are off and running on a sounder footing for addressing the origin of complex, tightly integrated genetic and epigenetic information and organisation, the rise of new protein types, cell types and body plans. And nope, something that may explain how a small and isolated sub population may vary and become wholly or partly reproductively isolated, does not explain the matter adequately.
That is a matter of gross extrapolation on a premise that in effect any amount of relevant info and organisation can be explained incrementally as being functional improvements that fix in sub pops all the way. That is no more reasonable than assuming that while retaining function incrementally, we can convert “See Spot run” into say this post.
And for such an extraordinary claim, we need clearly adequate empirical evidence. That evidence is: _________________, and that evidence excludes an alternative such as design of the first and key successive body plans because __________________ .
As a capital example of the problem to be explained on specific cases that highlights the difference, consider the origin of a whale from some suitable quadruped. Work through the list of incremental changes and come back on how the whole will be viable, with empirical observational warrant.
Similarly, the origin of complete metamorphosis in animals such as butterflies (which I raised a few days back), needs similar well grounded explanation.
Those two alone, suffice to show why the incrementalist extrapolation to and from speciation is not to be taken as an of course.
KF
OT: Haven’t kept up I guess….but can someone answer this:
What is the difference people are referring to in the general topic when they refer to intelligent design versus Intelligent Design? (i.e. one being big or capitalized ID)?
JG: Someone has been making a big thing out of it. The asserted distinciton is problematic. That many people believe in design in and even of the world is a different thing from the “real” design inference point: that it is at least possible to investigate scientifically whether there are reliable, observable signs in the world that point to intelligent design (as opposed to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) as best causal explanation. There has been an attempt to load up the capital letter ID with the specific meaning that includes a hidden agenda Creationist theism, and there has been some attempt to demand that design theory must achieve several attainments before it is acceptable. Like, whodunit type stuff. But, let’s keep on track. KF
A few related notes from Dr. Berlinski:
Darwin and the Mathematicians – David Berlinski – 2009
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....cians.html
Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8
quote from preceding video:
“John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
Dr. David Berlinski
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html
“Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science.”
Granville Sewell – Professor Of Mathematics – University Of Texas – El Paso
and:
Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE
“No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
Leonardo Da Vinci
Well put at 13, KN.
However, the real boost to evolutionary biology came with cheaper and faster DNA sequencing. Species definitions matter less than what DNA can confirm about reproductive isolation.
Mr. Fox, the point that Dr. Berlinski brought out in the quote in the OP is that neo-Darwinism is not a scientific theory in any sense of the word since it has no mathematical basis from which to judge its accuracy or to make ‘daring’ predictions. In the “Accounting for Variations” video I listed Dr. Berlinski put it, “One is left completely adrift”.,,, And as Dr. VJ Torley asked in his recent article exposing the ‘in thin air’ scientific foundation that Darwinism rests upon:
The lack of a mathematical foundation, which Dr. Torley beautifully illustrated, was particularly surprising for me, because I had been assured here on UD by a evolutionary professor at a leading university (whom Dr. Torley referenced in his article), years ago, that Darwinism was ‘mathematical’ through and through. And yes one can get away with saying that Darwinism is ‘mathematical’ through and through, but what one cannot get away with saying is that Darwinism has a rigid mathematical basis from which one can make extensive predictions with. Well, after being subtly misled for years by that professor’s distortion/omission of the facts, I finally, in my slow pace of things, started to piece together the fact that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation at all as do all other well established scientific theories,,
In fact, contrary to what the employers at Oxford would like to believe, the truth is that there is not some magical mystery equation out there waiting to be discovered to finally give Darwinism the foundation that it needs to be considered truly scientific. The fact is that Darwinists have refused to listen to what the equations of population genetics are thus far telling them. i.e. Darwinists refuse to accept the falsification of their theory from mathematics:
This is simply unheard of in science. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics subject themselves constantly to potential falsification, as well as refinement for accuracy, to see if their mathematical descriptions of reality accurately predict what is observed for reality.
In my unsolicited personal opinion, the main reason Darwinism cannot be formulated into any coherent mathematical model to give accurate, ‘daring’, predictions is because of its reliance on the ‘random variable postulate’ at the base of its formulation:
Moreover, as Alvin Plantiga has shown in his Evolutionary argument against naturalism, (i.e. a refinement of “The argument from reason” from CS Lewis), this ‘random variable postulate’ ends up driving neo-Darwinism into epistemological failure,,,
,,, the ‘unrestrained randomness’ at the base of Darwinism, if neo-Darwinism were actually true, results in the epistemological failure of science itself! But this really should not come as a surprise to anyone for how can a theory which denies the reality of mind in the first place be said to guarantee that our perceptions and reasoning of mind are trustworthy?
Supplemental notes:
In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (determinism) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,
Here is another piece of evidence that solidly demarcates the randomness of the material particles of the universe from the randomness that would be necessarily inherent within ‘conscious’ creatures created by God with free will:
Since material particles are held to ‘randomly’ decay, why in blue blazes is conscious observation putting a freeze on ‘random’ entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than ‘random’ entropic decay is? This point is really driven home when we realize that the initial entropy of the universe was 1 in 10^10^123, which is, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the universe.
Music and verse:
kairosfocus @ 24
Thanks.
You know, here is something that I don’t get. Most of the arguments I’ve heard from those opposed to inferring intelligent design seem to come back to we only know or have observed human intelligence to design.
But let me side step for a second and first explain a concept, as I understand it.
Science seems to explain phenomena in nature by observing it and forming hypothesis etc… This is pretty much all its about, as I understand it. For example, the motion of the planets. Ok, Newton pretty much solved that single handed. And so then gravity was associated with mass of an object. Mass is due to the amount of matter. So, where there’s matter, there’s gravity. Yay!… observed and tested.
So, from that, scientists can infer things like nearby planets or stars to other planets or stars based on some cyclical pattern of movement. That is, they see some phenomena they know, gravitational effect, and infer nearby matter. Ok, fine. Makes sense!
Now.. pay close attention..
Scientists observe some effect about the universe. They see some effect! And it looks to them like there must be this familiar effect of gravity present. But….they can’t see the matter… So, they posit a mysterious form of matter, called “dark matter”. A kind of matter that we have never experienced.
This get’s passed as science all the time.
Now. Contrast to ID.
The phenomena we observe is functional design.
The only observed cause has been intelligence…but critics stop and say we have only seen human intelligence.
Ah ha! Well, we have only seen normal matter create the effect of gravity!
Doh!
I wonder if all those same critics are blasting the scientists that promote dark matter as intensively.
Interestingly enough, scientists that posit dark matter actually even go a step further than ID scientists. That is, ID scientists don’t take the extra step further to try to identify or characterize the intelligence, but merely to identify it’s intelligent activity.
Anyway, just noting that observation.
As well Mr. Fox, you appeal to “what DNA can confirm about reproductive isolation” as empirical confirmation that the grand claims of neo-Darwinism are true, yet no one disputes reproductive isolation:
What is disputed is whether reproductive isolation is the result ‘top down’ genetic entropy processes or ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinian processes. And the empirical evidence consistently indicate that reproductive isolation is brought about by ‘top down’ genetic entropy processes:
In fact Dr. Fox it is surprising that you would refer to genetic sequences at all for Darwinists are infamous for, as Popper put it, ‘explaining everything and thus actually explaining nothing’ with genetic sequences. This lack of rigor is beautifully illustrated with the recent finding of widespread of ORFan genes and the ‘spin’ Darwinists put on this crushing evidence against their theory:
As well as micro-RNA’s
Further notes:
Alan Fox:
In what way was that a boost to “evolutionary biology”?
Only the Creationists predicted reproductive isolation. And what can DNA confirm?
Don’t ya just love how Alan just says stuff without supporting it…
Moreover, contrary to the Darwinian claim the Darwinism is as well established as gravity it is interesting to note that in the building of better random number generators for computer programs, a better source of entropy is required to be found:
And Indeed we find:
And the maximum source of randomness in the universe is found to be where gravity is greatest,,,
,,, there is also a very strong case to be made that the cosmological constant in General Relativity, the extremely finely tuned 1 in 10^120 expansion of space-time, drives, or is deeply connected to, entropy as measured by diffusion:
Thus, though neo-Darwinian atheists may claim that evolution is as well established as Gravity, the plain fact of the matter is that General Relativity itself, which is by far our best description of Gravity, testifies very strongly against the entire concept of ‘random’ Darwinian processes building functional complexity.
The Septic Zone has been hacked. Life is good…
– Why do you think hierarchical organization is a necessary truth?
– What are the implications of this truth? What is this thing that organizes its own parts, until the moment of death?
Talbott: “The question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
Are we forced – by the necessary truth of hierarchical organization – to except a reality with causal power beyond matter?
I do not wish a hack attack or the like on anyone. KF
JG: Are beavers humans? Cf here, at UD. In addition, so long as non-human designers are POSSIBLE — as in not IMPOSSIBLE — then, once we isolate signs of design, there is no valid reason to lock this down to humans as designers. That is yet another side-track talking point, as the very existence of SETI indicates. KF
In re: Box @ 35
I don’t see how it is possible for something to count as an organism if it does not display a top-down integrated hierarchy of functions. So while it is not a necessary truth that there be organisms — organisms are ‘contingent,’ as the logicians say — it is necessary that if something is an organism, then it has (or is) a top-down integrated hierarchy of functions.
I don’t understand this question. For one thing, I don’t know what “matter” means. For example, if “matter” means “whatever it is that contemporary physicists posit at the smallest scale of description”, that’s wildly different from, say, the mechanistic materialism of the 17th through 19th centuries — little billiard-balls bouncing around the cosmic billiard-table.
If that Epicurean, billiard-ball model of “matter” were firmly established, then it would rather easy to say, “the limits of the causal capacities of matter are here, here and here, and for these, these, and these reasons, organisms exceed the causal capacities of matter, so there must be something else — God, Mind, elan vital, whatever”. But the 20th-century revolutions in physics have overturned that old model of “matter”. And so I think we should be extremely cautious about any theory that turns on, “but can matter do this??” — because we really do not know what the limits are on the causal powers of physical entities — for that matter, we don’t really know what “physical” means. (Cf. Hempel’s dilemma for a nice illustration of the problem.)
You are right of course. Let me rephrase my question:
By ‘parts’ I mean: ‘whatever they are’. I mean the parts which are being organized by the ‘thing’ – on the level of the whole. I wish to bypass discussions about quantum physics and I’m perfectly fine with your proposed definition “whatever it is that contemporary physicists posit at the smallest scale of description”.
What I’m saying is that parts – whatever they are – cannot account for top-down organization, so we must except a reality (on the level of the whole, with true causal power) beyond the parts.
Box as to:
That ‘top-down hierarchical organization’ that keeps from ‘falling completely apart’ would be,,
Notes to that effect:
As to where this ‘conserved’ quantum information goes upon the death of our material bodies:
The parts cannot account for top-down organization:
BA77:
You really do have to push your religion into every discussion, don’t you? Although the molecular cause of death is not completely understood, we are steadily converging on an answer.
@Bornagian77
The Ultimate Top-Down Organizer!
I do not believe we are all parts of one super-organism though.
Bornagain77, about quantum entanglement: do I understand it correctly that when 2 (or more) ‘particles’ are entangled the exchange of information between the particles happens outside spacetime? And if so, the questions are:
– What is information?
– What is beyond spacetime?
Stop it! That’s another keyboard you owe me!
“I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS IS ACCURATE TO THIRTEEN OR SO DECIMAL PLACES; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison? ”
…. pass.
Genomicus per 42:
Funny you should accuse me of pushing ‘your religion’ into every discussion and then in the very next breath you push your religion, a materialism/randomness of the gaps, into the discussion:
as to materialism someday explaining the death of our physical bodies, I would hold that it already does in the second law of thermodynamics:
Moreover Genomicus, before you boast that science (as you have it defined to materialism) will someday figure out the ‘molecular cause of death’, should you not first try to understand what life is in the first place?? or perhaps have a demonstration of ‘life’ itself arising ‘randomly’ from a material basis??
So much for that piece of evidence for you,,,,, if I can be so presumptuous, I’ll give you a clue where ‘life’ can be found Genomicus:
kairosfocus @ 37
I think that the critics would argue *any* intelligence (including beavers) we know from experience.
That’s why I brought up mysterious dark matter..it’s nothing we known from experience. And it’s been posited based on an observed phenomena that we know from experience has only one *kind* of cause. Matter being a *kind* of *physical stuff*.
Which is a step further than ID. All ID needs to do is infer intelligent activity. The *kind* of cause for the observed phenomena is intelligence.
Box as to 43:
What is beyond spacetime? simply means for something to be ‘transcendent’ of any space-time matter-energy constraints. As to what is information:
As Professor McIntosh points out in the preceding video, information is a very elusive entity to nail down, for though we can write it down, encode it, and transfer the information from one material medium to another completely different material medium, the information never changes its meaning even though the material mediums, on which the information is stored, are completely different upon the information’s transfer.,,, It is also interesting to note that a Compact Disc crammed with information on it weighs exactly the same as a CD with no information on it whatsoever.,, i.e. Information, from our everyday experience, gives every indication of being completely transcendent of any material basis. i.e. Information gives every indication of being ‘real’ and yet it also gives every indication of being transcendent of any space-time matter-energy constraints even though it may be stored on various material mediums. Moreover, although our everyday experience gives us a very enigmatic picture of ‘information’, breakthroughs in quantum mechanics have given us a more complete picture of ‘information’ and its top place in the overall hierarchical structure of reality;
Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:
It is also important to note that even though the dispute between Darwinists and IDist has been over ‘classical information’ in DNA and Proteins and the inability of purely material processes to account for the generation of it, ‘classical information’ is now shown to be a subset of ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum information by the following method:
This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical, (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis), since he believed it always required energy to erase it;
Hope that helps a little bit Box
In re: Box @ 39
I do see what you’re getting at here, but it strikes me, to be quite honest, as deeply confused. (Or perhaps the confusion is mine — we’ll see.)
The line of thought here seems to be as follows: “organisms are integrated wholes, but there must be something which makes them an integrated whole.” That’s ok, as far as it goes. But now for the slip — “and that something must be some thing, and since that thing can’t be itself material, it must be non-material (mind, information, spirit, soul, whatever)”.
But if we really take seriously Talbott’s overtly Romantic attitude towards life (allusions to Goethe and Coleridge abound in his writings), then I think we should be a bit wary of this line of thought. This line of thought amounts to saying, “since organisms are wholes, and not just collections of parts, there must be some special kind of part — the non-material or spiritual part — which makes the physical parts into the whole”. But that looks to be like an implicit rejection of Talbott’s claim, because it is to look for some kind of part to explain the whole — a very special, because non-physical, kind of part. Whereas on Talbott’s view, as I understand it, there is no need to posit the existence of special kinds of parts in order to explain how ordinary parts (the physical ones) become integrated wholes.
Of course, the question here, “how do parts become integrated wholes?” is a deep and important question, and I’d be very interested to see how he would deal with the origin of life. But I think that he would not want to say that the origin of life can be solved by positing some additional kind of part that, when added to the physical parts, turns those parts into a whole.
Let’s see 🙂
Yes, there must be something – distinct from the parts – which makes the parts into an integrated whole. Ok so far we seem to agree.
‘Thing’ does not have the right connotation, since it is distinct from the parts. What I intended to point to was exactly NOT a part. My vocabulary is very limited unfortunately. A better word may be ‘form’, ‘whole’ or ‘phenomenon’?
You associate the word ‘thing’ with ‘part’ and you are right that this is exactly what Talbott rejects as a solution. The whole cannot be explained by the parts. Excuse me for my poor choice of words.
But your deep and important question *how do parts become integrated wholes?* need to be answered. And when the parts are excluded from the answer, we are forced to except the reality of a ‘form’ that is not a part and that does account for the integration of the parts. And indeed, if DNA, proteins or any other part of the cell are excluded from the answer, than this phenomenon is non-material.
Bornagain77 (47), that was very helpful, thank you.
JG: My point was that we can show through concrete cases that intelligent design is not such that being human is either necessary or sufficient. So, as long as a candidate designer is POSSIBLE in a situation, we must be willing to allow the inductively arrived at signs that point to design as causal means, to speak for itself and hold probative value. Or else, we are begging huge questions, Lewontin-style. (And, are our blind watchmaker thesis friends willing to argue that such a designer is IMPOSSIBLE at origin of cosmos and of life or body plans? On just what grounds? If they cannot, then what they are doing is little better than huge begging of questions.) KF
In re: Box @ 49:
There’s a slide from “form” to “phenomenon” which troubles me here. In resisting the allure of reductionism, the right notion to focus on (it seems to me) is that of organization or structure. That is, it’s the organization of the molecular components, and not just the properties of the components themselves, that’s important for getting clearly into view the integrated hierarchy of functions that is a living organism.
But it would be an error, it seems to me, to say that the organization or structure is an immaterial something by virtue of not being a material something. It is, of course, quite real — not a projection or illusion — but just because the concept of structure or organization has no home in fundamental physics, is not to say that we must posit some supernatural or trans-natural realm or whatever.
By now, of course, you will have anticipated my next move: the right question to ask, in my estimation, is, “are there self-organizing processes in nature?” For if there aren’t, or if there are, but they can’t account for life, then design theory looks like the only game in town. But, if there are self-organizing processes that could (probably) account for life, then there’s a genuine tertium quid between the Epicurean conjunct of chance and necessity and the Platonic insistence on design-from-above.
Surely KN, re your regret that biogenesis is not susceptible to mathematical analysis, surely, such a desideratum or expectation is a category error, the adduced law relating to it, being simply a matter of an unvaryingly regular pattern.
I realise that mathematics doesn’t have a Piltdown Man, much to the chagrin, nae doot, of our evomalutionist friends, but I’m not sure any mathematics beyond the mathematics involved in counting repetitions, needs to be involved. Or am I mistaken?
You couldn’t make it up, Philip, could you! Genomicus has just proffered you the fabled Promissory Note. And you know, they don’t take ‘No’ for an answer.
‘You really do have to push your religion into every discussion, don’t you? Although the molecular cause of death is not completely understood, we are steadily converging on an answer.’
Tee hee. ROFL!
If it’s not open to the occasional Piltdown mis-step, then its not true science. Ask the lapsed jackeens, Carrol and Coyne.
KN @ 38: “I don’t know what “matter” means.”
Gives a whole new meaning to the question “what’s the matter?” 😉
Re: Kantian Naturalist(52)
I’m not arguing that the organization or structure is immaterial. I’m saying that ‘whatever is doing the organizing’ must be immaterial.
If the organization / structure cannot be causally explained by its parts, if the organization is top-down, what choice do we have?
About self-organization as a naturalistic concept I would like to ask: Why would any of the parts be interested in the whole – which does not exist? Why doesn’t everything just fall apart? And BTW the whole does not exist – which is what naturalism is about. I don’t like the term self-organizing. In naturalism there is no ‘self’; so self-organizing is just about parts that fit in a pattern in which we project a whole. Kant anyone?
Moreover, let’s suppose there is this mysterious self-organization without a self. What do we have? There is nobody home. An empty suit. No self! Just uninterested atoms in a meaningless pattern. There is no life in self organization as there is no thinking in John Searle’s ‘Chinese room’.
I resist the idea that life is just organized stuff or stuff formed into a particular structure. Bring back vitalism!
I can think of many many things which are organized or which have structure but are not alive.
So what does “self-organization” have to offer as a possible to solution to the mystery of life, if anything?
Is the sun alive? How about black holes? The Solar System? The Earth? The Earth-Moon system? Did they “self-organize”?
What Mung says!
KN @52:
Well said. You have put your finger on the key issue.
And the evidence clearly shows that there are not self-organizing processes in nature that can account for life.
This is particularly evident when we look at an information-rich medium like DNA. As to self-organization of something like DNA, it is critical to keep in mind that the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium. By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a self-ordering molecule like DNA that also stores large amounts of information.
The only game left, as you say, is design.
Unless, of course, we want to appeal to blind chance . . .
‘ “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’
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes the quantum wave collapse of material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit‘
Surely, Philip, they confirm my postulation a while back that, in a real sense, we each of us exist in a world, proper to ourselves, ‘a world of our own’, which, collectively, God, at the mechanical level, seamlessly coordinates into the single world of our everyday life.
In a bizarre sense, might it not even be said that, at the quantum level, our world is we, as individuals, and we, our world – of which Christ is the light.
To iterate the dictum of Kabbalist sage (not verbatim): ‘When a man dies, a whole world dies with him.’ If so, surely, the same can be said, ‘mutatis mutandis’ concerning our birth.
Given Christ’s both human and divine nature, perhaps his creation of a new, properly divine universe, on the occasion of that event horizon at his resurrection, his rebirth, as it were, would have been axiomatic.
‘I go to prepare a place for you,’ (his Mystical Body, created/prepared by his thoughts).
I am referring, of course, to the latest findings relating to the Holy Shroud of Turin.
Kantian:
You wrote in 13:
“What evolution critics have trouble appreciating, I believe, is that as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned, once speciation has been explained, everything has been explained. There’s nothing left. And this is because — and I think this is really important — as far as evolutionary biology is concerned, only species are real.”
I think you are making too great a generalization about what “evolutionary biologists” believe. For example, Donald Prothero has pointed out that there exists a major debate among evolutionary biologists:
“More is at stake here than the reality of species, however. If species sorting is real [which, as Prothero explains in the article, is debated among evolutionary biologists], then the processes operating on the level of species (macroevolutionary processes) are not necessarily the same as those operating on the level of individuals and populations (microevolutionary processes). In other words, macroevolution may not just be microevolution scaled up.”
See:
http://www.donaldprothero.com/files/47440356.pdf
I am not saying that Prothero is taking a side on this question; he is merely pointing out the existence of a debate. In other words, “evolutionary biology” is not a monolith; some evolutionary biologists think that only one thing (your #1) needs to be explained (I presume this would include Coyne and Orr and Mayr); others suggest that maybe two things (your #1 and #2) need to be explained.
Now Prothero is not religious and is not an ID supporter. So I think it’s important that he admits to this kind of debate within the evolutionary biology field.
EA:
Spot on:
Well said.
KF
In re: Timaeus @ 65:
That’s very interesting! I’m dimly aware of these debates amongst evolutionary biologists and philosophers of biology, but haven’t really followed through with any of it. I’ll look into this! Thank you!
Follow-up to my (67) — I hadn’t realized that Gould used Windelband’s distinction between idiographic sciences and nomothetic sciences to describe different approaches to paleontology! That’s fascinating!
Nomothetic and idiographic