Review of Darwin’s Doubt slams ID theorists for not publishing in Darwinist-run journals

F/N: Just saw this in passing. FYI, the eye for eye principle is a LIMITATION by which the punishment must be proportional to the crime -- not wildly disproportionate. As, was all too commonly applied to people of low status who offended those of high status all around the world. KFkairosfocus

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

01:03 PM

1

01

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instantaneous done, occurring, or acting without any perceptible duration of time 180 milliseconds meets that definition.ET

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

09:38 AM

9

09

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan Keith, the point of the first and second articles that I cited was to show that morality is designed into us, even all the way down into the biological level. The point of the third, fourth, and fifth articles that I cited was to establish that morality cannot be reduced to any possible materialistic explanation. But you apparently completely skipped the later articles to focus on the "milliseconds" response time in the first article. But even if I only referred to 'biological morality', then even then, (seeing as Darwinists cannot even explain the origin of a single neuron, much less the origin of the entire "beyond belief" human brain), even then that biological evidence for morality, contrary to what you desperately want to believe, is further scientific proof that humans are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED to be moral creatures. Moreover, you seem to be hung up on the millisecond responses of the first article as if that delay helps alleviate the insurmountable problems you face as a Darwinian materialist,,, (I guess disillusioned, defeated, people grab onto any hope they can from wherever they can, no matter how faint that hope may be),,, and although I know, (since you are a Darwinist), evidence does not really ever matter to you in the least, then it might interest unbiased readers to know that,,, evidence that quantum mechanisms are at play on the macro level of the human brain is revealed by the following. In the following article it is noted that Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas.

,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays - 2008 Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,, Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575223/ The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain - Dec. 17, 2010 Excerpt: It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,, ,,, It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/ Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video (1:55 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=118

As well, evidence suggesting that quantum mechanisms are at play on the macro level of the human body itself is also revealed in the following article where it is revealed that a subject perceives a sensory stimulus on the skin at the moment the skin is touched, before the stimulus reaches the brain and before full deliberative consciousness occurs.

Do Perceptions Happen in Your Brain? - Michael Egnor - December 1, 2015 Excerpt: The sensory experiments of Benjamin Libet, a neuroscientist at U.C. San Francisco in the mid 20th century, demonstrated that a subject perceives a sensory stimulus on the skin at the moment the skin is touched, before the stimulus reaches the brain and before full deliberative consciousness occurs. Libet was flabbergasted by this result,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/do_perceptions101261.html

Thus AK, as if evidence ever really mattered to you in the first place, you should hold these instantaneous "quantum" actions that are now found to be at play in the brain and the body, (and every molecule of the body), to be further experimental falsification of your Darwinian worldview.

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

But alas, why I do I know that you will just ignore this falsification of your reductive materialistic worldview just like you do all the rest of the falsifications that are brought against your delusional worldview?? The rest of your post trying to answer my questions on your supposed 'materialistic morality', is, in my personal opinion, and to put it nicely, complete nonsense and rubbish. I am confident the unbiased reader will agree with me and clearly see who is blowing smoke and who is being forthright!bornagain77

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

09:35 AM

9

09

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET,

No, it isn’t. It’s pretty stupid to suggest that it is especially given that humans couldn’t tell how short the time was that had elapsed.

Yet the 180 milliseconds is well within the range of measured reflex speeds. Reactions that are purely physical in nature. Reflexes are not instantaneous, as BA77 suggested was the case for the brain's reaction to harm. It sounds like a reflex response to me.Allan Keith

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

08:21 AM

8

08

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What we're really looking for is process signatures. RM+NS travels along genetic routes in a bottom up approach. It works between genetic adjacencies, and can only check immediate structural and functional results. It lacks operational memory or processing apart from the result space and the current environment, and its time step is from mutation to mutation. It can't chase a functional feature or gradient over holes in the genetic->structural->functional mapping. Designers can take a top down approach. They have independent operational memory and processing that can be used in recursive heuristics in analysis that can freely travel between disconnected neighborhoods of genetic expression. The signature of a designer is consistent and optimal structure and functionality. Convergent and global design patterns and methodologies reused in separate genetic contexts. The signature of a Darwinian process is one of traveling between genetic adjacencies, and unnecessary structure or useless structure resulting from the need to get from point A to point B. If Darwin was right, we shouldn't simply have vestigial organs in the sense he used it; we should be a patchwork of no longer useful vestigial organs, never useful pseudo-organs; and even the working bits should have functionally inexplicable parts. If Darwinian processes produced IC systems by kludging and reducing previously independent systems of different function, we'd be producing more irreducible neutral experiments attached to useful or vital structures than successes. Also, the successes would often be recognizable as kludges. Even in non-IC structures, RM+NS doesn't know what a clean house looks like. It's not looking for mess. If it makes an edit that produces a neutral reduction, it may stick. But it's also just as ready to spend its mutational budget in making mess; and if it makes a neutral mess, that too, can stick. Messy remnants of exploratory experimentation is something even a designer has to work to keep on top of. Clean, optimal structure is also the signature of a meticulous designer. Which sounds more like biology?LocalMinimum

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

08:03 AM

8

08

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

However, we do know that there is no evidence for a mind existing without the physical brain.

How do we know that?

180 milliseconds is far from instantaneous.

No, it isn't. It's pretty stupid to suggest that it is especially given that humans couldn't tell how short the time was that had elapsed.

Yes, I deny its existence as, for the most part, it is a religious fabrication.

What? That is really dumb. Evil is a religious fabrication- wow.ET

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

07:34 AM

7

07

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77,

The illusory immaterial morals of atheists are no morals at all.

You are free to believe this fiction if you would like. That doesn't make it true.

Moreover, whereas atheists have no evidence that Darwinian evolution can create immaterial morality,...

And neither do IDists or theists. However, we do know that there is no evidence for a mind existing without the physical brain.

The following study shows that ‘Moral evaluations of harm are ‘instant and emotional’:

No it doesn't. 180 milliseconds is far from instantaneous.

The intentional harm sequence produced a response in the brain almost instantly. The study showed that within 60 milliseconds, the right posterior superior temporal sulcus (also known as TPJ area), located in the back of the brain, was first activated, with different activity depending on whether the harm was intentional or accidental. It was followed in quick succession by the amygdala, often linked with emotion, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (180 milliseconds), the portion of the brain that plays a critical role in moral decision-making.

The article also says that the brain is hardwired for this, suggesting a material cause.

And although a ‘instantaneous moral compass’, and the nuanced genetic response between noble vs. hedonic happiness, are pretty good for establishing that “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws” (Martin Luther King),

Wishful thinking but it still boils down to pure unsupported supposition. If there were universal moral laws, why do we see such great variation in societal morality over time and between cultures. If the moral laws are objective, they are so difficult to ascertain that they might as well not exist.

As to you ranting against “all the atrocities and sadistic acts he (God) was responsible for”,,,, And again, I ask you just where are you getting this sense of good and evil, i.e. morality, from?

Early teaching, indoctrination (brainwashing), reasoning, peer influences, etc. Most of our moral values can be reasoned from first principles and the desire to live in a community. Some commonly held morals, however, cannot be arrived at by these methods. It is these morals that we should be questioning and, if it makes sense, discarding. These would include things like moral stances on birth control, homosexuality, premarital sex, etc.

You seem to unquestionably believe that everyone should just accept the objective reality of this morality you are talking about,...

No. I expect that I would have to convince others of the value and validity of my moral stances. That is how society works.

all the while forgetting that your very own atheistic worldview resolutely denies the very objective reality of good and evil,...

Evil? Yes, I deny its existence as, for the most part, it is a religious fabrication. However, I can argue that my moral stances are either good or bad for the continued thriving of society.

Moreover, you are also completely forgetting that God, besides being the author of morality, is also the ultimate and sole judge against the moral transgressions of man.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I disagree with you on this.

You are conflating God’s punishment against man’s sin and with sin itself.

How is it possible to conflate two things that do not exist?Allan Keith

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

07:13 AM

7

07

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan Keith,

"If you mean that we (atheists) don’t have any morals then you are out to lunch."

The illusory immaterial morals of atheists are no morals at all. They are self admittedly made-up subjective fictions. Believing a subjective moral fiction represents a objective moral reality is called being delusional and/or being 'out to lunch'. Moreover, whereas atheists have no evidence that Darwinian evolution can create immaterial morality, (nor any evidence that Darwinian evolution can create anything else for that matter), Christian Theists, on the other hand, can appeal directly to science to support their belief that immaterial morality is objectively real. The following study shows that 'Moral evaluations of harm are ‘instant and emotional':

Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012 Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-moral-instant-emotional-brain.html

The following study is interesting in that, since Darwinian evolution can’t even explain the origin of a single gene/protein by unguided material processes, (much less can it explain the regulatory networks of genes working in concert), it shows that objective morality is even built/designed, in a very nuanced fashion, into the way our bodies differentiate between ‘hedonic’ and ‘noble’ moral happiness:

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

And although a ‘instantaneous moral compass’, and the nuanced genetic response between noble vs. hedonic happiness, are pretty good for establishing that “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws” (Martin Luther King), the following studies go one step further and shows that our moral intuition transcends space and time:

Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm

Of related note: Immanuel Kant's empirical requirement for the 'moral argument for God' to be validated, (i.e. influences arising from outside space-time), has now been met in quantum mechanics:

God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - Antoine Suarez - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk

The materialist/atheist simply has no beyond space and time cause to appeal to to explain why this 'moral' phenomena should happen! Whereas for a Theist, especially for a Christian Theist who believes that the Lord Jesus Christ died and rose again to pay for our sins, it would be fully expected that ‘objective’ morality would have such a deep, ‘spooky’, beyond space and time, effect. Video:

Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

As to you ranting against "all the atrocities and sadistic acts he (God) was responsible for",,,, And again, I ask you just where are you getting this sense of good and evil, i.e. morality, from? You seem to unquestionably believe that everyone should just accept the objective reality of this morality you are talking about, all the while forgetting that your very own atheistic worldview resolutely denies the very objective reality of good and evil, i.e. morality, that you seem to so adamantly believe to be real. ,,, You can't have it both ways. It is called the Law of Non-Contradiction! Moreover, you are also completely forgetting that God, besides being the author of morality, is also the ultimate and sole judge against the moral transgressions of man. You are conflating God's punishment against man's sin and with sin itself. Huge difference! Of related interest to this fallacious and self-refuting 'argument from evil' that atheists constantly try to use against God is this quote from Dr. Michael Egnor

The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

Quote:

“He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” ~James Stewart~ ——————————— “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” - James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland

bornagain77

May 8, 2018

May

05

May

8

08

2018

02:57 AM

2

02

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77,

Allan Keith, besides you ignoring the fact that atheism is completely amoral,

If, by amoral, you mean that we don’t believe that morality is objective, you are correct. If you mean that we don’t have any morals then you are out to lunch.

you do realize that ‘an eye for an eye’ is old testament do you not?

Which is part of the Christian bible, did you not know? Or are you one of these christians who believes that the New Testament absolves your god of all the atrocities and sadistic acts he was responsible for?Allan Keith

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

08:00 PM

8

08

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan Keith, besides you ignoring the fact that atheism is completely amoral, you do realize that 'an eye for an eye' is old testament do you not?

Matthew 5:38-48 Eye for Eye 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Love for Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And yes it is a exceedingly high moral standard that I regularly fail to meet. To which I can only remark, thank God for the grace that is found in Jesus Christ.bornagain77

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

07:17 PM

7

07

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan:

Atheists didn’t propose “an eye for an eye”.

They advocate the use brass knuckles and steel-toed bootsET

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

07:07 PM

7

07

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77,

Seversky, quit stealing from Christian Theism. There is nothing irrational in the atheist’s worldview with using force to win an argument...

Atheists didn’t propose “an eye for an eye”.Allan Keith

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

06:21 PM

6

06

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky, quit stealing from Christian Theism. There is nothing irrational or immoral in the atheist's worldview with using force to win an argument, as is amply demonstrated by the Communist regimes of the last century and by the present concerted censorship and intimidation of anyone who supports ID in academia in America. Once again, reality itself betrays your delusion that morality and reason can be grounded in reductive materialism.

Where Do Good and Evil Come From? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM Can atheists trust their own minds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

Reductive materialism simply implodes on itself Sev.

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 34: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

Thus, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

bornagain77

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

06:00 PM

6

06

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky:

Because ID is a theory of who not how.

No, ID is not about the who nor how. It is about the what

So, even if it were a fully-fledged theory it addresses a different question and can’t be a direct alternative to evolution.

Evolution by design is an alternative to evolution by means of blind and mindless processesET

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

05:54 PM

5

05

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77 @ 19

Again, Seversky, just why is it irrational on the atheist’s ‘survival of the fittest’ worldview to not use force to win arguments?

As far as I'm aware, there are few if any atheists who base a moral worldview on the principle of "survival of the fittest". Most are well aware that such would commit the naturalistic fallacy. And, as I said before, violence wins fights not arguments. Use of a 2 x 4 might bring an argument to an abrupt halt but it doesn't win it.Seversky

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

05:44 PM

5

05

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob O'H: Sorry, I thought you were being obtuse. I didn't realize you were unfamiliar with the metaphors. I duly note they've been explained. As to ID, the central "claim" of ID is that the information found within the genome cannot be explained via random, impersonal processes; nor can the level of information/genomic distances even between species that more taxonomically separated be so explained. Only intelligence can bridge such gaps. The central "claim" of Darwin is based on NS, but actually revolves around the principle of divergence, wherein, via Malthusian "survival of the fittest", and hence ultimately extinction, a 'variety' (what we know as a 'subspecies'), which is really an "incipient species" (per Darwin) gradually mutates until the more 'fit' descendant of some dominant species is eventually displaced and replaced by this 'fitter' variety, which is now on its way to becoming a 'genus.' This is what Wallace claimed to see in Malaysia, and was the principal discovery contained in the letter he wrote to Darwin in 1858/59. The Principle of Divergence claims that these incremental changes and displacements, with sufficient time, will lead to what we would call 'macroevolution.' To the best of my knowledge, no such 'macroevolution' event has been documented. So Darwin's central 'claim' remains in doubt. Meanwhile, we know that if you compare the amount of information in the software running primitive PC's to those running modern-day PC's, Windows 10, e.g., we know what that the explanation for this tremendous growth in information is human intelligence,and human intelligence alone. This should certainly be considered as giving some level of support to ID's central claim. In the end, all Darwinism really does is provide a way for persons looking at a variety of separate species to develop some kind of gradation from less to more of any particular trait or chemical make-up found within the species; IOW, it leads to 'cladistics.' Now, if 'evolutionary trees' actually worked, that is, if you could construct one that doesn't fall apart at some point in its branching structure, this would lend support to Darwin's central 'claim'; however, since 'cladistics' never consistently account for known species using the notion of common descent, this rather undermines Darwin's 'claim' instead. So, what scientific view should we be supporting now? The switch to ID from Darwinian 'gradualism' and 'common descent' would only mean different questions need to be asked in the lab and out in the field. Instead of asking, "Which of these two species is the descendant of the other?," you would ask, "How does this structure/system/behavior 'work' in these different species, and what is the basis for these differences?" But we see this already happening as scientists are looking into how various biological systems work as they seek to imitate the 'genius' solutions to problems found there. Or is this kind of 'reverse-engineering' not really science?PaV

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

05:38 PM

5

05

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PaV @ 17

None of this slows down Darwinism. Why? Because there’s no other theory out there. Really? Why not use ID?

Because ID is a theory of who not how. So, even if it were a fully-fledged theory it addresses a different question and can't be a direct alternative to evolution.

But it’s not that easy. Why? Well, let me state what Darwin’s friend Hooker stated right after the publication of OoS: “We should accept this theory because it’s the only one that can give us something to test.” (a paraphrase).

Hooker was right. Science has to work with whatever it has until something better comes along. Physicist were well aware of problems with Newtonian mechanics long before relativity came along but they had nothing better to work with until Einstein provided it.Seversky

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

05:31 PM

5

05

31

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan Keith, Please wake up as you are dreaming. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes so stop linking to articles about developmental biology. As if blind and mindless processes can produce regulatory networks and the genetic toolkit required for developmental biology. Natural selection is not magic even though you need it to be. And on top of that you don't have any idea what is actually being debated even though it has been spelled out for you many times under all of your socks. Your willful ignorance is why PaV talks about the 2x4. You are so dense you are a walking black hole.ET

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

05:15 PM

5

05

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan Keith:

The peer reviewed literature is full of evolutionary hypothesis testing.

Pure equivocation.

The difference between ID and evolution is that evolution is brave enough to propose possible mechanisms, test them, and refine the overall model in response to the results of these tests.

Clueless. Evolutionism is all about the how, ie the mechanisms. Yet peer-review is absent any testing of them that would demonstrate they are up to the task at hand. ID has the methodology that tests whether or not there is intentional design present

This has led to the current understanding which includes sources of variation (mutatation, meiosis, inversions, insertions, etc), drift, HGT, epigenetics, natural selection (including sexual selection), and many other factors.

None of which supports unguided evolution

So far, ID has some nebulous metrics for identifying design, none of which have actually been effectively used, and with no way of extrapolating these to biology.

ID's metrics are better than those used by evolutionists.

As has been mentioned, for ID to get out of this rut will require the development and testing of hypotheses about the mechanisms the designer (who does not have to be god) used to realize these designs.

That just proves that you are scientifically illiterate. We don't even ask about the who nor how until after design has been determined. And even then it is only important to those who are scientifically illiterate. The important questions to be answered are how does it all work together, how can we maintain and repair it. We may never find out who and we are in that position with artifacts. But by studying the design and all relevant evidence we can put some sort of profile together. The science of ID is in the detection of the design. And we don't care if you are too willfully ignorant to understand that.ET

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

05:09 PM

5

05

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Quantum information simply is not reducible to any reductive materialistic explanation. Period! (i.e. 'non-locality' confirmed to almost unbelievable levels of accuracy!) As the following articles state, “entangled objects (i.e. material particles) do not cause each other to behave the way they do.” and “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-quantum-imply-instant-causation.html Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

Thus Darwinism is now experimentally falsified in one of its core claims that information is somehow 'emergent' from a material basis. Of supplemental note: Classical 'digital' information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local' (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm Scientists show how to erase information without using energy - January 2011 Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all.,,, "Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.", Vaccaro explained. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-scientists-erase-energy.html

Verse:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

bornagain77

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

04:26 PM

4

04

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

As to falsifying Darwinian evolution instead of beating around the bushes: Another specific prediction of the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought is that the information in life is merely 'emergent' from a material basis. (Darwinists use to claim that the information in life was merely a 'metaphor', and that life was just, basically, 'complicated chemistry' but now, since information is found to be far more integral to life than they had originally presupposed, Darwinists backed off and now mainly claim that information is merely 'emergent' from a material basis.)

Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 Excerpt: “The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” (Let me provide the unstated conclusion:) But they don’t. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/living-things-machines-and-intelligent-design-part-two-of-a-response-to-the-smithy/#comment-353336 Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521802932&ss=exc

Yet, as this following video shows, directly contrary to that core Darwinian presupposition, immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.

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

A distinct immaterial entity, separate from matter and energy, that has, of all things, a 'thermodynamic content'

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform New Scientist astounds: Information is physical - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world. https://uncommondescent.com/news/new-scientist-astounds-information-is-physical/ Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency - Lisa Zyga - January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html

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

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

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

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

bornagain77

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

04:26 PM

4

04

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I have read all sorts of criticisms here about bad research. But nothing about attempts to rebut this work.

That's exactly the sleight of hand. The research itself and the conclusions drawn aren't the concern. It's the injection of throwaway sentences and clauses asserting an evolutionary explanation which is assumed but never offered. I'm not rebutting the research. Claiming that I am is misdirection. I'm rebutting this statement:

The peer reviewed literature is full of evolutionary hypothesis testing.

The peer reviewed literature is full of biological hypothesis testing which is only connected to evolution by its irrelevant verbal appeals to evolution.OldAndrew

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

04:12 PM

4

04

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Allan Keith. I noticed that in all your bluff and bluster you did not cite a single example of Darwinian processes producing a single molecular machine. Funny how that is always the case with Darwinists. They are all talk, but when it comes to backing up their grandiose claims that unguided processes can produce machines that greatly outclass our best man-made machines, in terms of engineering parameters, Darwinists are always found to be full of hot air! You guys are pathetic! Of related interest to falsifying Intelligent Design:

More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly - September 24, 2013 Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It's a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/more_irreducibl077051.html

Also of interest:

2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Points Strongly to Purposeful Design of Life - Michael Behe - December 6, 2016 Excerpt: The 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to three scientists who built simple “nano” machines out of individual molecules.,,, Articles reporting on the Prize were filled with praise for the ingenuity of the scientists. Yet there was also an undertone of skepticism about the whole project. One German chemist foresaw looming technical difficulties, “I’ve always been a bit skeptical of artificial motors. They’re too difficult to make, too difficult to scale up.” An overview article remarked that “Some chemists argue that although these motors are cute, they are ultimately useless by themselves.” So far the nanomachinery hasn’t been put to any practical use,,, Many of the pioneers of the field drew inspiration from molecular machines discovered in biology such as the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like outboard motor that can propel bacteria through liquid. Yet the molecular machines laboriously constructed by our brightest scientists are Tinkertoys compared to the nanotechnology found in living cells.,,, ,,, right at this very moment sophisticated molecular robot walkers à la Star Wars are transporting critical supplies from one part of your cells to others along molecular highways, guided by information posted on molecular signposts. Molecular solar panels that put our best technology to shame are found in every leaf. Molecular computer control systems run the whole show with a reliability that exceeds that of, say, a nuclear reactor.,,, http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/michael-behe/2016-nobel-prize-chemistry-points-strongly-purposeful-design-life “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

bornagain77

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

04:06 PM

4

04

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OldAndrew, sorry, but I disagree. I have read all sorts of criticisms here about bad research. But nothing about attempts to rebut this work. There is a process for that. If it is not working properly, present the evidence.Allan Keith

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

03:59 PM

3

03

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

How many scientifically based criticisms of these papers have you submitted to these journals.

That's a dodge. But it's not logical. It's essentially an ad-hominem. You've chosen to address something other than the point I made. That's understandable.OldAndrew

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

03:54 PM

3

03

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OldAndrew,

The peer reviewed literature is full of all sorts of testing of biological hypotheses. Then it’s sprinkled with language that asserts the existence of some neo-Darwinian explanation without providing it. Over. And over. And over. They cite other research which does more of the same. It’s scientific check-kiting, turtles all the way down. One simply has to read carefully to see the distinction between the actual science and the valueless narrative gloss applied over it.

How many scientifically based criticisms of these papers have you submitted to these journals. BA77? KairosFocus? You do realize that they publish commentary, don’t you? Or are you going to respond with “there is a conspiracy to prevent such criticism”? The Boy Who Cried Wolf Comes to mind.Allan Keith

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

03:13 PM

3

03

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The peer reviewed literature is full of evolutionary hypothesis testing.

The peer reviewed literature is full of all sorts of testing of biological hypotheses. Then it's sprinkled with language that asserts the existence of some neo-Darwinian explanation without providing it. Over. And over. And over. They cite other research which does more of the same. It's scientific check-kiting, turtles all the way down. One simply has to read carefully to see the distinction between the actual science and the valueless narrative gloss applied over it.OldAndrew

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

03:05 PM

3

03

05

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob O:

LateMarch @ 49 – Thank you. I wasn’t aware of that parable (it doesn’t seem particularly Biblical, and in the UK “two by four” doesn’t have any particular cultural significance, so I’m afraid that was lost on me. Now can you explain the stake through the heart metaphor. It seems to refer to killing people, but apparently not.

No, nothing biblical about it but it is a very well known parable here in the US. A 2X4 is a very common bit of lumber used to build houses. I'm reminded about a visit to my sister in Canada several years back. This acquaintance said that we would meet at Tim Horton's. For the life of me I couldn't figure out how I was supposed to know where this individual lived so that I could meet the following day. It was then explained to me that Tim Horton's was a doughnut shop there in the middle of the small burgh where I was staying. They are all over Canada. A cultural icon. Who knew? The stake in the heart is a similar thing. It is one of the few ways of killing a vampire. Thus if one refers to driving a stake thru the heart it means the sure killing of the idea or concept. No physical violence intended. The current cultural climate people will often accuse someone of intending physical violence in order to denigrate or distract from the underlying argument. Much like the accusation of racism stops all communication. Thus my post @11 Clear as mud? Or do I have to explain that saying as well?Latemarch

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

03:04 PM

3

03

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob

Or perhaps that’s ID’s biggest failing – it doesn’t have any theory of its own

There's no arguing with determined, willful ignorance. ID doesn't have a theory. It is a theory. It makes a claim and supports it with evidence. If anyone is intellectually courageous, let him or her refute that claim and argue against its evidence. Understanding that a thing was designed is not the same as understanding how it was designed. Let me repeat that for the sake of utter futility, because I realize that the cognitive dissonance will erase these words from many people's perception. Understanding that a thing was designed is not the same as understanding how it was designed. Living things are artifacts of designed technology. The alternative requires an appeal to supernatural miracles by which chemicals are empowered to encode copies of themselves with symbols, decode the symbols to reproduce themselves, all while creating walls to protect the process and mechanisms to collect energy to as to further it, all without intent. That is an appeal to magic, and to take it seriously is irrational. Inferring that a thing is a designed artifact is a rational, reasonable conclusion, whether or not one knows who or what the designer was. Will we understand more? We already do. It will likely take some time, but without exception every discovery reveals more intricate systems of self-repair, self-regulation, and different ways in which the details of living things are encoded. The greatest obstacle is that most scientific research of biological origins is dogmatically restricted to alchemy and 21st-century sorcery, endlessly seeking to prove that maggots spawn from meat and that cells spawn from chemicals and lightning, or whatever the most popular variation is, because the clergy of Miller-Urey demand to see their prophecies fulfilled and seek to ban the apocryphal heresy of ID from their sacred clergy-reviewed journals. We've got so many people looking for it that it must exist! The search itself is progress! It's a mixed blessing. The sorcery and dark-ages ignorance pervades an area where its dogma is untestable. The rest of science, where observations are tested and results are valued over myths is mostly spared.OldAndrew

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

02:51 PM

2

02

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77,

Allan Keith, apparently you are familiar with the Darwinian technique/art of literature bluffing made famous by Nick Matzke and others.

As opposed to the ID technique that you excel at called the Gish Gallop, made famous by Duane Gish and others. The peer reviewed literature is full of evolutionary hypothesis testing. That you would attempt to deny this fact says more about you than me. Some of these have resulted in modification of the theory. Others have supported the tested hypothesis. The difference between ID and evolution is that evolution is brave enough to propose possible mechanisms, test them, and refine the overall model in response to the results of these tests. This has led to the current understanding which includes sources of variation (mutatation, meiosis, inversions, insertions, etc), drift, HGT, epigenetics, natural selection (including sexual selection), and many other factors. The arguments in science now centre around the relative importance of each of these, not their existance. So far, ID has some nebulous metrics for identifying design, none of which have actually been effectively used, and with no way of extrapolating these to biology. As has been mentioned, for ID to get out of this rut will require the development and testing of hypotheses about the mechanisms the designer (who does not have to be god) used to realize these designs. Were they front loaded? Are they ongoing? Must they follow physical laws? Start with any or all of these and start doing the work.Allan Keith

May 7, 2018

May

05

May

7

07

2018

02:36 PM

2

02

36

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link