Intelligent Design

Remedial Logic for Materialists

Spread the love

Materialists have a lot of stock responses they use to distract themselves from the explanatory poverty of the “answers” their faith commitments require them to spew out in response to obvious objections.  Consider the materialist responses to my last post, Quashing Materialist Appeals to Magic (Again).

Briefly, I argued that unless materialists can provide some sort of an explanation of the process by which the physical electro-chemical properties of the brain result in the mental properties of the mind, then merely invoking “emergence” has exactly the same explanatory power as invoking “magic.”  I quoted atheists Thomas Nagel and Elizabeth Liddle, who concur.

Now to the materialist’s stock answer (courtesy of Popperian):  Barry, you have committed the Fallacy of Composition.  The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.  For example, hydrogen atoms are not “wet” and oxygen atoms are not “wet,” but if one inferred from the non-wetness of individual hydrogen and oxygen atoms that a particular way of combining and organizing those atoms would also be non-wet, one would be wrong.  Organize the atoms in a particular way and you get water, which is wet in a way that none of its constituent parts are.  In other words, “wetness” is an emergent property of the whole that is not a property of any of its parts, and if you had drawn an inference about the wetness of the whole from the non-wetness of the parts you would have been wrong.  In the same way, carbon atoms and the other physical components of the brain are not conscious, but when those parts are organized in a certain way, consciousness emerges.

No Popperian.  I have not committed the fallacy of composition.  Instead, you have committed the fallacy of false analogy.  The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.  The structure or form may be generalized like so:

  1. P and Q are similar in respect to properties a and b.
  2. P has been observed to have further property c.
  3. Therefore, Q probably has property c also.

A person commits the fallacy of false analogy when he makes a faulty inference from analogy.  And Popperian’s inference is faulty.  Let’s see why this is so.  Here is Popparian’s argument from analogy:

  1. Water and the brain are similar as to the following properties:

(a) Water molecules are made of parts; the brain is made of parts.

(b) The constituent parts of water molecules are organized in a particular way; the constituent parts of the brain are organized in a particular way.

  1. Water molecules have been observed to have a further property, namely the emergent property “wetness” resulting from the organization of its parts even though none of those parts exhibits that property.
  1. Therefore, the brain probably also has an emergent property, namely consciousness, resulting from the organization of its parts even though none of its parts exhibits that property.

An analogy is false if the similarities are not relevant to the conclusion.  In this case, the similarities are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to the conclusion.

We know why water is wet.  From Wikipedia:

Water is the chemical substance with chemical formula H 2O one molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom.  Water is a tasteless, odorless liquid at ambient temperature and pressure, and appears colorless in small quantities, although it has its own intrinsic very light blue hue. Ice also appears colorless, and water vapor is essentially invisible as a gas.

Water is primarily a liquid under standard conditions, which is not predicted from its relationship to other analogous hydrides of the oxygen family in the periodic table, which are gases such as hydrogen sulfide. The elements surrounding oxygen in the periodic table, nitrogen, fluorine, phosphorus, sulfur and chlorine, all combine with hydrogen to produce gases under standard conditions. The reason that water forms a liquid is that oxygen is more electronegative than all of these elements with the exception of fluorine. Oxygen attracts electrons much more strongly than hydrogen, resulting in a net positive charge on the hydrogen atoms, and a net negative charge on the oxygen atom. The presence of a charge on each of these atoms gives each water molecule a net dipole moment. Electrical attraction between water molecules due to this dipole pulls individual molecules closer together, making it more difficult to separate the molecules and therefore raising the boiling point. This attraction is known as hydrogen bonding.

In summary, we know why water has the emergent property of wetness (i.e., it is a liquid at certain temperatures even though its constituent parts would not be a liquid at those same temperatures).  We know, that is, that the parts of water are causally adequate to account for the properties of the whole, including the emergent property “wetness,” and we know exactly why that is the case.   If we had reason to know that the parts of the brain were causally adequate to result in consciousness, then that analogy would be apt.  But we don’t.  In fact, just exactly the opposite is true.   We don’t have the first idea how, even in principle, the physical properties of the brain are causally adequate to account for the mental properties of the mind.

Therefore, the analogy to the wetness of water gets us exactly nowhere, because we simply have no reason (other than materialist metaphysical faith commitments) to believe that the wetness of the water is similar in relevant respects to the consciousness of the brain.  In fact, we have good reason to believe that the physical can ever be, even in principal, causally adequate to result in the mental, far less actual knowledge of how that is the case, as we do with water.

Popperian’s analogy gets us no further than demonstrating that that emergence is possible under certain conditions for certain systems.  But no one disputes that.  The question is not whether emergence is possible.  Of course it is.  The question is whether emergence occurred.  And merely pointing out that emergence is possible gets us nowhere with respect to the question of whether emergence actually occurred.  With respect to that question, Popperian has not given us the slightest hint of a nod toward an explanation of how that could have happened, and there are good reasons to believe it could not.

Not only has Popperian committed the fallacy of false analogy, but he also has committed the fallacy of “affirming the consequent.” This error takes the following form:

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

The reason this is false is because there may be other causes of P besides Q, as the following example demonstrates.

If it is raining the streets are wet.

The streets are wet.

Therefore it is raining.

Why is this reasoning invalid?  Because while it is certainly the case that if it is raining the streets will be wet; the converse is not also true.  The streets can be wet when there is not a cloud in the sky (as for example when a fire hydrant breaks).

Here is how Popperain affirms the consequent when he invokes emergence to account for consciousness:

If there are emergent properties, the whole has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its individual physical components.

The mind/brain system has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its individual physical components (i.e., consciousness).

Therefore, the mind/brain system exhibits emergent properties.

Why is this affirming the consequent?  Because there could be another reason besides emergence to account for consciousness, namely, the existence of an immaterial mind.

Popperian, the streets are wet.  That does not necessarily mean it is raining.  Write that down.

98 Replies to “Remedial Logic for Materialists

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I always suspected my brain was all wet.

  2. 2
    DNA_Jock says:

    What an interesting fallacy.
    Can I try?

    1. Artifacts and lifeforms are similar in respect to properties a and b.
    2. Artifacts require an artificer.
    3. Therefore, lifeforms probably require an artificer also.

    Cool.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    DNA @ 2, for materialists arguments from analogy and abductive reasoning cut only one way; their faith commitments demand it.

  4. 4
    Glenn P says:

    unless materialists can provide some sort of an explanation of the process by which the physical electro-chemical properties of the brain result in the mental properties of the mind, then merely invoking “emergence” has exactly the same explanatory power as invoking “magic.”

    Interesting. So that’s the challenge every theory of mind has to meet? OK, thanks for being clear about it.

    Now, what is a substance dualist’s explanatory account of how the immaterial soul produces phenomena in the brain? Since being able to offer such an explanation seems to be a litmus test, I suppose being able to answer that question must be very important and I’m sure the author has a great answer ready.

  5. 5

    Barry: “because we simply have no reason (other than materialist metaphysical faith commitments) to believe that the wetness of the water is similar in relevant respects to the consciousness of the brain.”

    There is a good reason for that, which is that the existence of mental objects is fact, just as well as the existence of physical objects is fact.

    When I fantasize about a leprechaun then it is a fact that there is this fantasy figure, the mental object, of a leprechaun in my mind.

    The correct fundamental distinction is between all what is a matter of fact, which belongs in one category of material, and all what is a matter of opinion, such as goodness, beauty, God, the soul, which belongs in the category of the spiritual. The spiritual chooses which way the material turns out.

    And I will just go on and speculate that the mathematical ordering of the mind is exactly the same as that of the physical universe. The reason we can hold 3D objects in mind, is because the mind uses the exact same mathematical ordering as the physical universe. That should be the default hypothesis.

    You have given materialists a fairly easy argument to refute. It is subjectivity which materialists cannot explain.

    Subjectivity does not figure in materialism, so they reject faith in God, the soul. But really it doesn’t stop at rejecting God and the soul, they reject subjectivity altogether.

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    Glenn P @ 4 quotes this passage from the OP:

    unless materialists can provide some sort of an explanation of the process by which the physical electro-chemical properties of the brain result in the mental properties of the mind, then merely invoking “emergence” has exactly the same explanatory power as invoking “magic.”

    Then he says:

    Interesting. So that’s the challenge every theory of mind has to meet?

    Uh, Glenn, every explanation must actually, you know, explain. That is what it means to be an explanation after all. As Nagel says, asserting “it’s all emergent-y and stuff” is not an explanation. It is something that calls for an explanation. That should be obvious.

    As for your question about substance dualism, I am not a substance dualist, so I won’t speak for them. If you are asking me whether I am invoking the existence of the immaterial mind as some sort of “theory,” I am not. The existence of the immaterial mind is a datum, not a theory. It is, in fact, the primordial datum. Its existence is denied only at the price of patent absurdity and self-referential incoherence — a price materialists are eager to pay.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Materialists demonstrate that the mind is not the brain. They have different brains but are of the same mind.

  8. 8
    Daniel King says:

    The existence of the immaterial mind is a datum, not a theory.

    That’s a claim, not a datum.

    How can one test that claim?

    Does the immaterial mind interact at all with anything material? How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?

  9. 9
    Barry Arrington says:

    DK @ 8:

    The self-evident is untestable. It is that with which we test everything else.

  10. 10
    Peter says:

    Evolutionists have made a far worse logical fallacy than this. You often see the picture of ape to man showing a gradual series of changes. All the creatures have existed, so it is powerful evidence for evolution, except that the user of the picture is committing the affirming the consequence logical error.

    If evolution is true you will see gradual changes over time from ape to man (p). We see creatures that look like they could have evolved (q). Therefore evolution is true. q => p.

    This is a fallacy because evolution is the theory that creatures change between species. It has not been shown that any of the creatures could **only** have evolved from one species to another. There could be other reasons that there were different hominids.

    This fallacy also applies to homology and dna variation. There is no laboratory evidence ever showing one species ever having evolved into another. Homology assumes evolution is true based on similar structures. DNA variation assumes evolution to be true. Since 90 percent of the so-called evidence for evolution is homology and DNA variation, there is almost NO evidence for evolution.

    The only explanation for university professors inability to recognize these elementary logic errors is because it would upset their religious beliefs.

  11. 11
    daveS says:

    Peter,

    Isn’t what you describe simply the hypothetico-deductive method?

    Not to mention, it’s impossible to show that there could be no other reasons for the various hominids found in the fossil record.

  12. 12
    Zachriel says:

    Peter: If evolution is true you will see gradual changes over time from ape to man (p). We see creatures that look like they could have evolved (q). Therefore evolution is true. q => p.

    No. Therefore evolution is scientifically supported. As daveS points out, it is hypothetico-deduction. The more ways we can support a hypothesis, the more confidence we will have in our conclusion.

    With regards to the evolution of humans, we might then look for genetic evidence, which happens to also confirm the pattern of branching descent.

  13. 13
    daveS says:

    PS to #11: I should add that in your example, the conclusion would be that evolution has not been falsified by this particular test.

  14. 14
    eigenstate says:

    @Barry,

    Wow, this may be the poorest thinking I’ve seen in your posts, and that’s saying something…

    As for your question about substance dualism, I am not a substance dualist, so I won’t speak for them. If you are asking me whether I am invoking the existence of the immaterial mind as some sort of “theory,” I am not. The existence of the immaterial mind is a datum, not a theory.

    it’s not a datum, and can’t be. There’s nothing to measure, nothing to capture “as the daturm”. If that’s not clear, start with this:

    Barry, intuitions about the omniscience of his intuitions notwithstanding, thinks:

    “I can’t feel my brain or my thoughts when I think, it must be immaterial”.

    That is a conjecture, and it’s logically possible that it’s correct. But it’s not a datum, its a conclusion that can otherwise be explained:

    “My mind is the physical activity of my brain, I just can’t feel it or sense it as tactile process when I think”.

    Also an explanation. Everybody who reads you Barry, friend and foe alike, understands the, uh, not-so-sneaky reflex you have of hiding any belief or conjecture behind “self-evidently true”, or “unassailable fact”, but this is perhaps the most conspicuous case of that kind of intellectual cowardice yet.

    Do you know anyone else in the intellectual history of philosophy and science who would agree with you that your intuition of mind as immaterial makes that a fact (that’s what a datum is)?

    If we read an instrument, and get a reading from it – say 25 degrees celsius from a thermometer, we have a datum. It’s not specified or needed for what it’s measuring, or even if it is measuring correctly (perhaps the thermometer needs to be calibrated), it’s a fact that obtains intersubjectively, and is not subject to interpretation in terms of the value of the datum. LIke I said, it may be controversial as to whether the thermometer is calibrated or functioning correctly, but the datum of the number being displayed is not a matter of conjecture or controversy.

    Something to keep in mind when you’re cooking up howlers like this. It you pointed what critical skills you have at your own posts, you’d have to fall back to just posting links to current news stories.

    It is, in fact, the primordial datum. Its existence is denied only at the price of patent absurdity and self-referential incoherence — a price materialists are eager to pay.

    The existence of our thoughts cannot be denied, if we are thinking thoughts on that subject or any subject — transcendentally true. But that’s not the issue. The question how the mind obtains, and a physical mind-as-activity-of-the-brain neither introduces absurdities or incoherencies. An immaterial mind is problematic in ways a wholly physical mind is not, but it also does not obligate us to absurdities or logical contradictions.

    This is pre-remedial stuff, Barry. Your claims don’t even rise to juvenile. If you doubt that, we can go through relevant pages of, say, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and look at the basic concepts your bungling badly – ‘self-evidence’, datum vs. conjecture, theory of mind, etc. You’re not even on the playing field here, Barry. Maybe one of your ID supporters will be kind enough to point this out, and that might give you some more tribal friendly basis for a little introspection here, but given your penchant for defending yourself from criticism with denigration and verbal abuse, I won’t be surprised if your left to wallow as you are.

    Mind as immaterial, because it’s a datum. Let the record show, your Honor, that this is what we are dealing with.

  15. 15
    Daniel King says:

    The self-evident is untestable. It is that with which we test everything else.

    Barry, I appreciate your comment, especially because you noticed me and didn’t insult me.

    But you might consider the following examples of things that are or have been considered to be self-evident:

    The earth is flat.

    The sun moves around the earth.

    Heavier objects fall more rapidly than lighter objects.

    Men are superior to women.

  16. 16
    Daniel King says:

    Hi, Barry,

    I noticed that your response didn’t address my questions:

    Does the immaterial mind interact at all with anything material? How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?

    I would appreciate your thoughts on those items.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    DK,

    But you might consider the following examples of things that are or have been considered to be self-evident:

    The earth is flat.

    Daniel, as the wag said, “it is not what you don’t know that is bad; it is what you do know that just isn’t so.” Here’s an example. The ancients knew the earth was round and even calculated its circumference. Your other examples are also not examples of “self-evident” propositions.

    By definition, a self-evident proposition can never be proven to be false.

  18. 18
    Barry Arrington says:

    eigenstate mocks, scoffs and ridicules at 14. Noticeably absent — even the slightest hint of how the physical produces the mental.

    For those of you who might be tempted by eigenstate’s bluff, I commend you to world famous atheist Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, where he acknowledges the logical incoherence of exactly eigenstate’s position.

    Which just goes to show you don’t have to be a theist to understand that the physical cannot produce the mental; you don’t have to be an ID proponent to understand the physical does not produce the mental. You just have to be honest.

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: The ancients knew the earth was round and even calculated its circumference.

    The world didn’t start with Eratosthenes. People long thought the world was self-evidently flat.

    Barry Arrington: By definition, a self-evident proposition can never be proven to be false.

    Not only can some so-called self-evident truths be proven false, some can be said to be self-evidently false. For instance, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal…” Well, it’s clear that people are not created equal, but vary considerably in skills, capacity, and inherited wealth and power. In particular, King George III would have said that he was born to rule his subjects, and that a person’s primary duty was to his lord, not to the pursuit of happiness. This was the self-evident truth of the Middle Ages. Self-evident truths apparently have a limited shelf-life.

  20. 20
    Barry Arrington says:

    eigenstate is evil, and because he is evil he can acknowledge that a developing human “is both fully human and full alive” and then in the next breath say that Planned Parenthood employees are doing an affirmatively good thing when they chop up that fully human and fully alive being and sell its parts like meat.

  21. 21
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel

    Not only can some so-called self-evident truths be proven false

    No, Z, they can’t. No self-evidently true statement has ever been proven false. You don’t understand the nature of self-evident truth. You have a nasty habit of pontificating on matters about which you don’t have a clue.

  22. 22
    Popperian says:

    Barry:

    P and Q are similar in respect to properties a and b.
    P has been observed to have further property c.
    Therefore, Q probably has property c also.

    Conciseness must be emergent because we’ve observed emergent explanations in the past?

    Why do you insist in putting me in a box I do not belong in? Specifically, I’ve presented criticism of inductivism on the same thread. Yet, you’ve just assumed I’m making an inductive argument.

    Surely, you can do better than this?

  23. 23
    Barry Arrington says:

    I’m curious Zachriel. Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat?

    The reason I am curious is there seems to be a one-to-one correlation between those who deny self-evident truth and those who are OK with chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat. And if I am wrong about that I would like to know.

  24. 24
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian,

    Surely you can do better than to distort and misrepresent my argument. Yet you don’t.

    Surely you can do better than stamping your foot and asserting “it’s poss-i-bool; it’s poss-i-bool.” Yet you don’t.

  25. 25
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: No self-evidently true statement has ever been proven false.

    Bald claim followed by ad hominem. You might try providing an argument instead.

    If you define self-evident as one which is not capable of contradiction, then the truths in the U.S. Declaration of Independence are not self-evident. However, the term as used in the Declaration means truths that can be garnered through introspection. If you accept the truths, then the syllogism in the Declaration will be persuasive. If you do not accept the truths, then you will not be persuaded. King George and the British parliament were not persuaded. They valued duty and stability before the individual pursuit of happiness.

  26. 26
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat?

    The sale of human tissue is illegal in the U.S. As far as we know, no one in the current kerfuffle has been charged with such a crime, but if the evidence supports such a charge, they should be prosecuted.

  27. 27
    Barry Arrington says:

    Z’s argument appears to be:

    1. The asserted self-evident truths in the Declaration are not in fact self-evident.
    2. Therefore, self-evident truth does not exist.

    Non-sequitur Z. Fail.

  28. 28
    Popperian says:

    I’d also point out that i did not claim you committed the fallacy of composition, either. My criticism is specific to how you or StephanB know what someone is capable of producing or not. To quote StephanB…

    A sufficient or proportional cause is one that is capable of producing the effect, which is defined as a change or the coming into existence of another thing. Accordingly, a cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Matter, for example, does not have the power to reflect on itself, so it cannot confer or transmit that quality to humans.

    First, anthropomorphize much? Second, the fallacy of composition doesn’t even “go” in that direction. From the referenced link…

    The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).

    Given that wetness isn’t true of some part of the whole, how did you get that from an argument I didn’t make? Rather, I’m suggesting your “criteria” commits the fallacy of division, which does “go” in that direction.

    A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts

    That is is reflected in StephanB’s comment. Specifically, something true for the whole, human reflection, must also be true of all or some of its parts, matter, for it to be a proportional cause. Since reflection isn’t true of matter it cannot cause reflection in the whole.

    Again, if I’ve got it wrong, then what is your criteria and how does it differ. Please be specific.

  29. 29
    Barry Arrington says:

    Actually Z @ 26, you are wrong about that. The statute is worded such that the word “sell” is defined to exclude reimbursing an abortionist for the cost of obtaining the baby parts.

    So, I will ask the question, again. Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat even if that practice turns out to be perfectly legal?

  30. 30
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: 1. The asserted self-evident truths in the Declaration are not in fact self-evident.

    That is not our position. Indeed, many people accept the truths of the Declaration of Independence as self-evident, which they determine by introspection. However, others find the truths not self-evident. The Founders recognized the truths as essentially subjective, which is why they didn’t argue for the truths, but simply stated them and hoped their audience would agree; because if they agreed with the precept, then the syllogism would be persuasive. However, this self-evident truth was contrary to the self-evident truths of the Middle Ages, which were duty to God and sovereign before any individual pursuit of happiness.

    King George and the British parliament weren’t daft or irrational. They just didn’t accept the precept that all men are created equal. Anyone can see that they are not equal in terms of ability, and furthermore, see that some are born into positions of power and responsibility, which they saw as God-ordained.

  31. 31
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: The statute is worded such that the word “sell” is defined to exclude reimbursing an abortionist for the cost of obtaining the baby parts.

    That’s right. They get reimbursed for the costs of acquiring, storing, and transporting the tissue, just as they do with any other tissue donation. They can’t legally make a profit, and the evidence certainly indicates that they don’t.

    Barry Arrington: Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat even if that practice turns out to be perfectly legal?

    We support current laws which criminalize the sale of human tissue.

  32. 32
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian:

    My criticism is specific to how you or StephanB know what someone is capable of producing or not.

    And I answer that criticism here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....um-gambit/

  33. 33
    Popperian says:

    Barry,

    You still haven’t explained how you can infallibly identify an infallible source or howe you could managed to interpret it infallibly should you have identified one in the first place. In the absence of such an explanation, when you’re actually faced with moral problems in practice, it seems your only recourse is to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally criticism them.

    For example, how do you distinguish Barry Arrington’s views on abortion and same sex marriage from some objectify true morality?

  34. 34
    Barry Arrington says:

    Z @ 31 absolutely refuses to answer the question. Telling, very telling. BTW, Z, I infer from your non-answer that the answer is really “yes, you are in favor of choppping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat” After all, if the answer were “no” there would be no need to evade the question. I find it absolutely fascinating that you claim to attach moral significance to whether or not the pieces are priced to make a profit.

    The one-to-one correlation I mentioned above continues to hold.

  35. 35
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian:

    when you’re actually faced with moral problems in practice, it seems your only recourse is to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally criticism them

    OK, Popperian, Zachriel is too cowardly to make his views on the matter plain. How about you. Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat?

  36. 36
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Z @ 31 absolutely refuses to answer the question.

    You must be hard of hearing, as we already answered.

    Barry Arrington: Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat even if that practice turns out to be perfectly legal?

    No, we are not in favor, it’s not legal, and as far as the evidence so far indicates, it hasn’t happened with regards to Planned Parenthood.

  37. 37
    Barry Arrington says:

    Z @ 36. “it hasn’t happened with regards to Planned Parenthood”

    Planned Parenthood admits to selling pieces of the unborn babies they’ve chopped up. My God man. They are on video negotiating prices. Why in the world would you claim it has not happened when they admit it?

  38. 38
    Peter says:

    DaveS @11

    That is exactly true. It is stating an hypothesis. It is not proving the hypothesis.

    There can be many explanations for the fossil record: God did it, aliens did it, time travelers did it, evolution did it, or some other force. What the facts do not do is prove it was evolution. For the hominid record to prove an ascent to man to have to prove evolution is the only possibility. That is where in the fallacy resides.

    To not be a fallacy it has to go like:

    1. Evolution is the only force that could cause species to morph.

    2. There is an ascent to man.

    3. Therefore evolution created the ascent of man.

    This is deductive reasoning. However, since 1 is not know it is a fallacy to say 3 has been proven. Elementary logic.

    If as you say it is impossible to rule out all the explanations then that means evolution is untestable, and therefore not science.

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Planned Parenthood admits to selling pieces of the unborn babies they’ve chopped up.

    Actually, they’ve denied it, even in the surreptitious tapes. But if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted

  40. 40
    asauber says:

    “Why in the world would you claim it has not happened when they admit it?”

    I’m curious as to how peoples like Zach become so devoted to the idea of abortion. They hold onto it with religious fanaticism. Why would that be when they claim to be non-religious? What is it about abortion that demands their loyalty?

    Andrew

  41. 41
    asauber says:

    “Actually, they’ve denied it”

    So have countless other criminals re: their crimes.

    Come on Zach, what gives with you and abortion?

    Andrew

  42. 42
    Zachriel says:

    Peter: It is stating an hypothesis. It is not proving the hypothesis.

    In science, one doesn’t prove a hypothesis, but supports it.

    Peter: There can be many explanations for the fossil record: God did it, aliens did it, time travelers did it, evolution did it, or some other force.

    None of those, other than branching descent, entail the details of the fossil record, so they would not be suitable scientific hypotheses.

    There can be many explanations for planetary orbits: Angels do it, aliens do it, time travelers do it, gravity does it, or some other force. But of those, only gravitational theory entails specific empirical predictions that are subject to testing.

    Peter: This is deductive reasoning.

    Science isn’t merely deduction, but hypothetico-deduction.

    Peter: If as you say it is impossible to rule out all the explanations then that means evolution is untestable, and therefore not science.

    No. That just means you don’t know what it means to test a scientific hypothesis. Given the hypothesis, deduce the entailments, then test those. The more ways you can test a hypothesis, the stronger your confidence, but no scientific hypothesis is considered proven. They are all held tentatively, not matter how strongly supported.

  43. 43
    Peter says:

    Zachriel @12

    Yes, the hypothesis is stated. But there is no proof one species morphed into another. You are assuming away what you are trying to prove. The fossil records don’t have to show ascent. I am sure that there could be any number of orders. That is why a chimpanzee is used, because it fits the theory, but did not exist before man. Not evidence, just speculation.

    If anything the complexity of dna should tell you that the chances of evolution just creating a species is beyond absurd.

  44. 44
    Zachriel says:

    Peter: But there is no proof one species morphed into another.

    See @42

  45. 45
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: Why would that be when they claim to be non-religious?

    Where did we make that claim?

    asauber: So have countless other criminals re: their crimes.

    Sure, but Barry Arrington claimed otherwise. In any case, if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted.

  46. 46
    Barry Arrington says:

    Does everyone see what Zachriel is doing at 39? It is really quite despicable.

    The question (see 29):

    Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat even if that practice turns out to be perfectly legal?

    Z refuses to answer the question. He keeps saying if Planned Parenthood did something illegal they should be prosecuted.

    Coward.

  47. 47
    Barry Arrington says:

    If Zachriel and I had had this exchange in 1943 it would have gone something like this:

    Barry: Zachriel, are you in favor of Nazis putting Jews in ovens.

    Zachriel: If the Nazis are doing something illegal under German law they should be prosecuted.

    Barry: Non-responsive Z. Killing Jews is defined as legal in German laws. The question is whether you are in favor of it even it if it perfectly legal.

    Zachriel: They deny doing anything illegal.

    Barry: They admit to killing Jews. You have evaded the question again.

    Zachriel: Well, I certainly believe that if they are doing something illegal under German law they should be prosecuted.

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    {snipping Barry Arrington’s ad hominem}

    Barry Arrington: Z refuses to answer the question.

    We directly answered your question.

    Barry Arrington: Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat even if that practice turns out to be perfectly legal?

    Zachriel @36: No, we are not in favor

    UDEditors: Liar and coward. You wrote @ 36: ” No, we are not in favor, it’s not legal.” PP (and you ) assert it is legal; therefore, by incorporating your answer at 36 you leave yourself that dodge.

    Barry: Zachriel, are you in favor of Nazis putting Jews in ovens.

    No, we are not in favor.

  49. 49
    daveS says:

    Peter @ 38,

    Do you have a reference, such as a standard textbook, which lays out the syllogism you gave? I don’t think you’ve described the reasoning correctly. There is certainly no deductive proof that evolution is true, and I don’t recall ever seeing a reputable source claiming so, which is why I’m asking for a published example.

    If as you say it is impossible to rule out all the explanations then that means evolution is untestable, and therefore not science.

    Eh? You can always appeal to an omnipotent designer to account for any set of observations, so it’s never possible to rule out all competing explanations for anything. And actually, this is a problem for ID—the existence of an omnipotent designer is an unfalsifiable proposition.

  50. 50
    eigenstate says:

    @Zachriel

    No, we are not in favor.

    Nor am I, of course, but that won’t get in Barry’s way of just claiming whatever he likes.

    I do not advocate cheating on a spouse, but I fully support a culture and legal framework where that is not a crime. People should have the liberty to do as they like, even if it’s actions I do not support or advocate. So long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of other persons, they should have liberty to act as they choose.

    Same thing with abortion. It’s not something I would personally choose, or advocate as a course of action, but I fully support the liberty of others to choose as they see fit. So long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of other persons, and I don’t see that it does, they should be free to proceed as they choose. To deny that choice to woman, on the other hand, WOULD be impinging on her right to privacy and liberty, to control her own person.

    Barry’s not the least bit principled in representing the views of critics — his Christian ethics on display for us all to be inspired by — and I think anyone with more than a passing familiarity with his approach to this understands the value of his characterizations. But for the record, I don’t advocate for the practice of abortion as a practice. I’d not choose it and welcome its decline in frequency in our culture. I do proudly advocate for the freedom of others to determine their chooses and actions for themselves, though.

  51. 51
    asauber says:

    “It’s not something I would personally choose, or advocate as a course of action”

    eigenstate,

    Can you explain to us why you would not advocate abortion as a course of action?

    Andrew

  52. 52
    Zachriel says:

    Voice in the Ceiling</b.: Liar and coward. You wrote @ 36: ” No, we are not in favor, it’s not legal.” PP (and you ) assert it is legal; therefore, by incorporating your answer at 36 you leave yourself that dodge.

    Your misreading doesn’t constitute a lie. We’ll restate it.

    No, we are not in favor. By the bye, it’s not legal, and we support the law in this regard.

    UDEditors, if you are so opposed to it, why was it so damn hard to drag an unambiguous answer out of you. Here, let us show you how it is done:

    Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat?

    A. No.

  53. 53
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel,

    When the Planned Parenthood reps are negotiating price in those videos, what exactly do you think they are selling? In other words, what is it that they are selling that they want to “do a little better than break even on”?

  54. 54
    Barry Arrington says:

    eigenstate @ 50:

    People should have the liberty to do as they like . . .

    And if what they “like” is chopping unborn babies into little pieces and selling the pieces like meat, then eigenstate is all for their liberty to do that.

    Like I said, evil.

  55. 55
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: In other words, what is it that they are selling that they want to “do a little better than break even on”?

    “I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a nonprofit, they just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that,” Nucatola says.

    But immediately after this statement, Nucatola goes on to say: “Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get.” Planned Parenthood told us that she may have been referring to more general operations of the clinics.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/.....ood-video/

  56. 56
    Zachriel says:

    Voice in the Ceiling: if you are so opposed to it, why was it so damn hard to drag an unambiguous answer out of you.

    Zachriel @31: We support current laws which criminalize the sale of human tissue.

    Zachriel @36: No

  57. 57
    Barry Arrington says:

    OK Z @ 55: What is it that you think they are selling that they want to break even on”?

  58. 58
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: What is it that you think they are selling that they want to break even on”?

    Planned Parenthood provides a wide variety of services, including contraception, screening, and abortion.

  59. 59
    Barry Arrington says:

    Z @ 58. Here we go again. Obvious evasion.

    Yes they do provide several services. In that particular video they are talking about a particular service and selling a particular product.

    Please do not evade again. It is unseemly and embarrassing.

    Tell us what you think they are selling that they want to break even on.

  60. 60
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: In that particular video they are talking about a particular service and selling a particular product.

    Actually, that’s not clear from context, but we did include abortion in our comment. They want to break-even on their fetal tissue donation program (which is only in a few states).

    Barry Arrington: Tell us what you think they are selling that they want to break even on.

    It’s not clear they are selling anything, but do expect their costs to be covered on their fetal tissue donation program.

  61. 61
    Barry Arrington says:

    I see, the fig leaf you give yourself is calling it a “fetal tissue donation program.”

    Well, let’s explore that.

    Zachriel are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?

  62. 62
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?

    You always overload your questions, which is why straight answers are rarely possible. When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

  63. 63
    Peter says:

    DaveS @49

    What I have stated applies to every textbook on evolution I have seen. There is no evidence of one species being morphed into another in the lab. No one has ever seen it either. So there is no proof of evolution. The evidence I have seen is of the type I described. Showing dots on a line is not the same as connecting the dots to make a line.

    I would be hard pressed to argue for a God designer if the universe always existed, as the leading scientists believed before the Big Bang was discovered. How could you say God created the universe if the universe always existed. It would contradict the bible and critically weaken the theistic argument. But theists don’t have to worry about that because science supports the Bible.

  64. 64
    Peter says:

    Zachriel @everywhere

    Your arguments are vacuous. You will never learn. So it is pointless trying to discuss evolution with you.

  65. 65
    Zachriel says:

    Peter: There is no evidence of one species being morphed into another in the lab.

    Speciation is typically a process, not an event, a process that can take millions of years. Because it is normally such a slow process, we would not expect to directly observe speciation. We would expect to see varying degrees of reproductive isolation, and this we do see.

    In any case, speciation in plants has been observed through polyploidy.

  66. 66
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel,

    I had a feeling your were lying through your teeth at 52. Thanks for confirming it.

  67. 67
    daveS says:

    Peter,

    I would urge you to read just one textbook on evolution carefully and check whether it uses the fallacious reasoning you describe.

    In contrast, take a look at this page which outlines the hypothetico-deductive method. You will see that it does not commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    John Sanford, a leading expert in plant genetics, examines Polyploidy (Gene/Chromosome Duplication) fallacies in Appendix 4 of his book “Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome”.

    “What about polyploidy plants? It has been claimed that since some plants are polyploidy (having double the normal chromosome numbers), this proves that duplication must be beneficial and must increase information. Polyploidy was my special area of study during my Ph.D. thesis. Interestingly, it makes a great deal of difference how a polyploid arises. If somatic (body) cells are treated with the chemical called colchicine, cell division is disrupted , resulting in chromosome doubling – but no new information arises. The plants that result are almost always very stunted, morphologically distorted, and generally sterile. The reason for this should be obvious – the plants must waste twice as much energy to make twice as much DNA, but with no new genetic information! The nucleus is also roughly twice as large, disrupting proper cell shape and cell size. In fact, the plants actually have less information than before, because a great deal of the information which controls gene regulation depends on gene dosage (copy number). Loss of regulatory control is loss of information. This is really the same reason why an extra chromosome causes Down’s Syndrome. Thousands of genes become improperly improperly regulated, because of extra genic copies.
    If somatic polyploidization is consistently deleterious, why are there any polyploidy plants at all – such as potatoes? The reason is that polyploidy can arise by a different process – which is called sexual polyploidization.This happens when a unreduced sperm unites with a unreduced egg. In this special case, all of the information within the two parents is combined into the offspring, and there can be a net gain of information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. the information within the two parents was simply pooled. In such a case we are seeing pooling of information, but not any new information.”,,, “in some special cases, the extra level of gene backup within a polyploidy can outweigh the problems of disrupted gene regulation and reduced fertility – and so can result in a type of “net gain”. But such a “net gain” is more accurately described as a net reduction in the rate of degeneration.”
    John Sanford – Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome – pages 191-192 – Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University Professor for more that 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph. D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.,,, His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions – the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators.

    Double Your Pleasure: What Exactly Can You Get from Polyploidy? – October 10, 2014
    Excerpt: “Stebbins viewed polyploid species as genetically depauperate with limited evolutionary potential. A new polyploidy species was envisioned as forming via a single polyploidization event and would therefore exhibit a high degree of genetic uniformity across individuals. Following this model of formation, an allopolyploid would exhibit no homologous, or segregating, variation, only homeologous (nonsegregating) variation. Furthermore, if a mutation were to arise in the polyploid, its effect would be masked by either the presence of a homeologous locus (in an allotetraploid) or multiple alleles (in an autopolyploid). Although not impossible, the fixation of a new mutation is much slower in a polyploid than in its diploid parents. Stebbins (1971 , p. 127) correctly noted that “…the large amount of gene duplication dilutes the effects of new mutations… polyploids have great difficulty evolving truly new adaptive gene complexes” and that “…chromosome doubling will most often have a retarding effect on evolutionary change via mutation, genetic recombination, and selection.” Furthermore, this buffering effect of multiple genomes may extend to the origins of morphological variation in a polyploid (Stebbins, 1950 , 1971 [pp. 147-148]): “Very often, even in complexes on which the basis of phytogeographical evidence must be regarded as hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old, the range of morphological variability encompassed by all of the tetraploids is less than the total range of that found among the diploids…”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90311.html

    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany, has also done extensive research on plant breeding and is also, to put it mildly, unimpressed with Darwinian claims of speciation:

    Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin December 29, 2010
    Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…
    (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42191.html
    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, before you claim that Darwinists do not ‘assume their conclusion’, I would urge you to provide just one real time example of Darwinian evolution creating just a single gene and/or protein. That would go a long way towards helping you make your case that they don’t.

    Dr. Behe surveyed four decades of lab work and found no evidence for unguided material processes creating a single novel gene and/or protein. In fact, in direct contradiction to neo-Darwinian claims, he found unguided material processes to overwhelmingly degrade existing information to gain an adaptive advantage rather than ever building information up.

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

  70. 70
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Peter says this fallacy is in the evolution textbooks. Can you help by finding some examples?

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, the fallacy is everywhere!

    Off the top of my head, both genetic sequencing and cladistics both ‘assume the conclusion’ of Darwinian evolution in their analysis.

    So any textbook that mentions those two examples as proof for Darwinism are ‘assuming their conclusion’

    In fact, the empirical findings of ENCODE, findings of widespread functionality in the genome, were challenged by Darwinists with a paper that had ‘assumed the conclusion’ of common descent in their analysis of genetic sequences.

    DNA mostly ‘junk?’ Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is ‘functional’, study finds – July 24, 2014
    Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution — a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141608.htm

    i.e. So according to these Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, which found widespread functionality for ‘junk’ DNA by direct experimental research, functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional, only ‘conservation of sequence’ determines what is functional?
    So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true at the outset will Darwinists be willing to accept that a given sequence of ‘junk’ DNA may be functional!,,
    That is called ‘assuming your conclusion into your premise’ and is absolutely horrible science!

    I suggest Jonathan Well’s ‘Icons of Evolution’ to find more examples of Darwinists ‘assuming their conclusion’ and/or grossly misrepresenting evidence:

    Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Ape to Man: The Ultimate Icon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzTFeWL19Bs

    Icons Playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS2RPQAPifs6t__mIAqITpYy

  72. 72
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Affirming the consequent is not the same as assuming the conclusion.

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever daveS. Darwinism is a evidence free, mathematical proof free, pseudo-science and I’m sure Darwinists, since they have no real empirical evidence to back up their grandiose claims, have used every logical fallacy in the book to try to support their preposterous theory.

    The Adventures of Fallacy Man – Existential Comics
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

    The Adventures of Fallacy Man part II – Existential Comics
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/21

  74. 74
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel at comment 52:

    Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat?
    A. No.

    Zachriel at comment 62:

    Q. Are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?
    A. When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

    Which one is the lie Z? They can’t both be true.

  75. 75
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Which one is the lie Z?

    It’s bad enough you can’t accurately read our comments, but now you can’t even read your own comments. The first is a question about selling, the latter is a question about distribution. (As already indicated, we ignored the overloading in both cases.)

  76. 76
    Ray Martinez says:

    daveS (msg#72): Affirming the consequent is not the same as assuming the conclusion.

    Please explain the difference.

  77. 77
    Ray Martinez says:

    bornagain77 (msg #73): Whatever daveS. Darwinism is a evidence free, mathematical proof free, pseudo-science and I’m sure Darwinists, since they have no real empirical evidence to back up their grandiose claims, have used every logical fallacy in the book to try to support their preposterous theory.

    .

    So does that mean you accept species immutability (which is my position)?

    “I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable” (Darwin “On The Origin” 1859:6; London: John Murray).

    Before 1859 science held “each species” immutable, created independently. After this date evolution and Materialism rose in science. So you and many others here at Uncommon Descent oppose Materialism and evolution tooth and nail yet all of you accept the MAIN CLAIM of both: species mutability.

    Tell me I’m wrong? Wouldn’t mind one bit.

  78. 78
    Ray Martinez says:

    Zachriel (msg #42): “In science, one doesn’t prove a hypothesis, but supports it.”

    You mean in Naturalism “science” nothing is provable, not even your own existence. Isn’t that true?

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    Ray, I don’t accept common descent.

    Although “immutable” is a loose term within Darwinian hands, I do hold creatures to ‘reproduce after their kind’.

    For instance, although their is tremendous variation within the dog kind, I hold that you will never get a transformation to say a cat from the dog kind. (to the relief of cats everywhere) 🙂

    None of the evidences, (i.e. laboratory, genetic and fossil evidences), support unlimited plasticity as Darwinists claim they do.

    In fact there is much evidence supporting hard limits. For instance, Behe’s two protein-protein binding site ‘Edge of Evolution’

    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’ (1 quadrillion 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.,,,
    The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,,
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    In the following video Dr. Behe talks of the 2014 verification of his 1 in 10^20 limit by experiment

    Michael Behe – Observed Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

  80. 80
    Daniel King says:

    How to derail your own thread, ostensibly about the illogic of persons who question the existence of immaterial minds:

    @20:

    eigenstate is evil…abortion, etc.

    @23:

    I’m curious Zachriel. Are you, like eigenstate, in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat?

    If there’s any chance of getting back on topic, I’d still like to know if the expert on immaterialism can answer:

    Does the immaterial mind interact at all with anything material? How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?

  81. 81
    daveS says:

    Ray Martinez,

    Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy, and is what Peter was talking about above. He described an argument of the form:

    If P then Q
    Q

    Therefore P

    which is obviously invalid.

    Assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy where you assume what you are trying to prove, usually in a nonobvious way.

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Daniel King you ask

    “Does the immaterial mind interact at all with anything material? How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?”

    And exactly why should agent causality more mysterious to you than the blind causality that you believe in as an atheist? If anything the blind causality of atheists is far more mysterious, even far more illogical, than the agent causality of theists. Professor J. Budziszewski puts the situation like this for atheists

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf
    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – 2012 talk
    University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski
    http://veritas.org/talks/profe.....er_id=2231

    Daniel King you wanted to know, “How does your immaterial mind communicate with your typing fingers?”. But I want to know if it is not the personal agent of me freely writing my post with my own typing fingers, then exactly what laws of physics are writing my letter for me if it is not the personal agent of me doing it?

    As far as I know Illusions of physical processes can’t freely choose to write letters.

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:

    “consciousness is an illusion”

    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins

    ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    Dawkins vs Williams – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    In the following, Richard Dawkins admits that it impossible for him to live consistently within his atheistic worldview

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    In the following article, Dr. Nelson clearly articulates the irreconcilable difficulty that engulfs atheistic materialism in their denial of agent causality

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

    And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:

    “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
    “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
    “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.”
    “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”

    Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,

    The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....qlE#t=746s

    What should be needless to say, if freely raising your arm whenever you freely choose to do so is enough to refute your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism, then perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview?

    Moreover, it is not as if agent causality is limited to any action that I may freely choose to take with my body, i.e. raise my hand, open a door, etc… There is now evidence that mind can also have pronounced effects on the brain itself. ‘Brain Plasticity’ to a person’s focused intention has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as has been established among other researchers.

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video
    The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

    Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, mind has also now been shown to have the ability to reach all the way down and have pronounced effects on the gene expression of our bodies:

    Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,,
    the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
    http://www.tunedbody.com/scien.....ges-genes/

  83. 83
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, though not nearly as dramatic as the mindfulness within the body is, it has now been established that consciousness can reach outside the body to have marked effects on the double slit experiment.

    Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:

    Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
    Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
    http://www.deanradin.com/paper.....0final.pdf

    Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern –
    Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme – December 2013
    Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,.
    The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies.
    http://deanradin.com/evidence/.....ys2013.pdf

    Thus, it is not as if there is no evidence whatsoever that mind can effect matter as you pretend Daniel. There is plenty of evidence for within body control by the mind, and there is even evidence for outside the body control by the mind, though admittedly not nearly as pronounced as within body control.

    All in all, especially considering the epistemological failure that atheists wind up in when they deny that they have free will, I consider the case for agent causality to be a slam dunk for Theists:

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

    Verse and Music:

    Matthew 16:26
    What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

    Brandon Heath – No Turning Back (Official Lyric Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_TGh9-iabM

  84. 84
    Steve says:

    A women’s right to control her person ends upon conception.

    Then she becomes the guardian and lifeline to another human being.

    Upon conception, she has every RESPONSIBILITY to see that the unborn child has all that is requires to come to physical maturity, and that includes AFTER birth as well.

    That is what a just, moral, rational society does.

    Anything else is just playing the lame victimization game to find an out to an undesirable situation.

    Moral, just, rational people take responsibility for their actions. They especially do not take their life’s frustrations out on helpless, unborn children!

    Same thing with abortion. It’s not something I would personally choose, or advocate as a course of action, but I fully support the liberty of others to choose as they see fit. So long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of other persons, and I don’t see that it does, they should be free to proceed as they choose. To deny that choice to woman, on the other hand, WOULD be impinging on her right to privacy and liberty, to control her own person.

  85. 85
    Zachriel says:

    Ray Martinez: You mean in Naturalism “science” nothing is provable, not even your own existence. Isn’t that true?

    In science, all claims are considered tentative, though some are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach states:

    In science, all claims are considered tentative, though some are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

    Actually, it would be better to say that in science a theory can only be considered scientific to the degree that it is falsifiable.
    And in that regards, neo-Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science in the first place but is more realistically qualified as a pseudo-science.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    neo-Darwinism simply has no rigid mathematical basis, as other overarching theories of science have, to test against to potentially falsify the supposed ‘theory’:

    “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
    – Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 – professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago

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

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,,
    Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

    Imre Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism does not have rigid demarcation criteria to test against so as to potentially falsify Darwinisn and to separate it from pseudo-science,,,

    A Philosophical Question…Does Evolution have a Hard Core ?
    Some Concluding Food for Thought
    In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24)
    “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.”
    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off…
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria as other overarching theories of science have, he was at least brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science whereas a bad theory will generate ‘epicyclic theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) –
    “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosop.....cript.aspx

    In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.
    Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that

    “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....27s_theory

    And in regards to making false predictions, neo-Darwinism is now revealed to be, in Lakatos’s words, a ‘degenerating programme’.

    Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015
    This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory.

    *Introduction
    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Responses to common objections

    *Early evolution predictions
    The DNA code is not unique
    The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal

    *Evolutionary causes predictions
    Mutations are not adaptive
    Embryology and common descent
    Competition is greatest between neighbors

    *Molecular evolution predictions
    Protein evolution
    Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change
    The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time

    *Common descent predictions
    The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
    Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships
    Biology is not lineage specific
    Similar species share similar genes
    MicroRNA

    *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions
    Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
    Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
    Gene phylogenies are congruent
    The species should form an evolutionary tree

    *Evolutionary pathways predictions
    Complex structures evolved from simpler structures
    Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them
    Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved
    Nature does not make leaps

    *Behavior
    Altruism
    Cell death

    *Conclusions
    What false predictions tell us about evolution
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

    A few more related quotes:

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    “When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....uples.html

  87. 87
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: And in that regards, neo-Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science in the first place but is more realistically qualified as a pseudo-science.

    Well, you might start with a succinct definition of “neo-Darwinian evolution”.

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, you might go soak your obfuscating head.

  89. 89
    bornagain77 says:

    podcast – “Dr. Cornelius Hunter: False Predictions of Darwinian Evolution, pt. 1”
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_41-07_00

  90. 90
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Well, you might start with a succinct definition of “neo-Darwinian evolution”.

    bornagain77,

    You commented, but didn’t answer.

  91. 91
    bornagain77 says:

    Do you need help soaking your obfuscating head?

    I’ve got the perfect guy in mind:

    http://pre00.deviantart.net/e2.....61orny.jpg

    Let me know how it goes for you. And if he finally convinces you to discuss a topic without trying to render it obscure, unclear, and/or unintelligible.

  92. 92
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Do you need help …

    Yes. We want to know how you are using the term neo-darwinian evolution in order to better understand your position.

  93. 93
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, you are not a ‘we’. Since you can’t even master the proper use of pronouns, I certainly don’t want to tax you any further.

    Moreover, I am quite satisfied that readers can clearly understand my post without your, ahem, ‘help’.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-576907

  94. 94
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: I am quite satisfied that readers can clearly understand my post

    You used the term “neo-Darwinian evolution”. You have refused to say how you are using the term. Your argument is moot if you can’t define what it is you are arguing against.

  95. 95
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, my invitation for you to go soak your obfuscating head stands.

    This is my last reply to your baiting.

  96. 96
    Virgil Cain says:

    bornagain77- Ask Zachriel for a link to the theory of evolution. 😎

  97. 97
    Daniel King says:

    Has Zachriel been banned?

  98. 98
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Trolling, obfuscation, dishonesty, sophistry — all in the cause of nihilistic irrationality (and amorality). I’d be surprised if he’d still be permitted to peddle his wares here.

Leave a Reply