Big Bang Extraterrestrial life Intelligent Design

Rob Sheldon on the current trend to non-theist intelligent design (ID) theory

Spread the love

We’re talking about Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, claiming at Scientific American that maybe advanced aliens engineered the Big Bang. He can’t say God did it. But he can say that They did it.

Hmmm.

When some people wrote privately to protest that this ET>Big Bang stuff is all just one space bunny too far down the cosmic path, I (O’Leary for News) pointed out in response that Neil deGrasse Tyson (here), Martin Rees (here), and Elon Musk (here) have also suggested that very thing.

Tyson and Musk have great name recko. And yet non-theistic ID is not endangering their careers?

Well, now theoretical physicist Rob Sheldon writes to offer some thoughts on the new-found popularity:


Avi Loeb is a product of post-1947 Israel, where ideology was always important. Enlightenment principles were not going to motivate you to farm the Negev. So instead of the monoculture of scientism, Avi learned how to frame his argument in the ideology du jour to maximum effect. His recent foray into alien ID is a calculated move, and related to his tenure at Harvard. You might say it is a flanking move on the Woke mob.

The Long Ascent: Genesis 1–11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Robert Sheldon, David Mackie]

Neil de Grasse Tyson is far less creative than Avi. He was a “new atheist” when that was in vogue, he’s switched to “alien ID” when that came up. I think he has a desire for the limelight, and instinctively moves where the lights are brightest.

Martin Rees could have been a solid astrophysicist with high profile graduate students. But his promotion to president of the Royal Society, Royal Astronomer and then to the House of Lords, means that his astrophysics must take secondary precedence to his politics. About the time that all these political posts fell to him, he started publishing pop-sci books:

As you can see, they range from the ID-friendly to the Politically-Correct. In all cases, they attempt to make the argument that science is relevant to politics and even can act as a savior for politics. Then in my view the alien-ID schtick is cynically a rhetorical method of getting a platform with the public to exploit for political causes.

The Long Ascent, Volume 2

Elon Musk has made a career out of selling his genius. For one example, his Tesla motor company has not yet broken even, and would not exist but for government subsidies. And the government subsidizes it because he is a great salesman, and he works his engineers to the bone, discards them, and recruits more engineers. As a salesman, it is important to be on the cutting edge of every movement. Like BitCoin. Not to stay there, but to make a bundle and move on. For Elon to support alien ID, means it is cutting edge right now, and of course, his support means it will soon be passe. Not because it doesn’t work, but because it’s been milked and there are other cows in the pasture.

All these men saw an opportunity. And the opportunity is the Fall of Modernism. It is the same opportunity we IDers have seen for 20 years now.

(All these views are mine, and are not to be construed as support for any individual. I have not received funding from any of these people.)


Readers?

Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .

You may also wish to read: At Mind Matters News: Harvard astronomer: Advanced aliens engineered the Big Bang. Avi Loeb writes in Scientific American that when we humans are sufficiently advanced, we will create other universes as well.

69 Replies to “Rob Sheldon on the current trend to non-theist intelligent design (ID) theory

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Hardly new-found. Secular ID was a very common view among scientists 100 years ago. Maybe even the default view.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    ID does not require a belief in God so an atheist can accept ID. The best ID can do for the religious is allow one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. 😎

  3. 3
    Fasteddious says:

    The obvious answer is that as Darwinism comes under more scrutiny and attack, with evidence against it piling ever higher, those in “the know” must skirt away from it carefully by trying out other options, without outright denial of Darwinism. And so we get, “aliens did it”, or “we are in a simulation”, or “anything can happen in the multiverse”, any of which seems more palatable to their atheist presumptions than the idea there might actually be a God who created the world. They will continue to dance around theism by positing ever-more-loony possibilities, just to hang onto their worldview, even though it is in tatters.

  4. 4
    JVL says:

    ET: ID does not require a belief in God so an atheist can accept ID.

    But when a atheist starts asking who the designer is you start getting your knickers in a twist and say that’s not part of ID!

    IF you really think that some alien come up with some kind of plan for the evolution of life on earth and implemented that plan a long, long time ago (and maybe tinkered around with the actual way things played out) and you can come up with a coherent argument for that with some solid evidence of such a being aside from that which you infer was designed then I think you’ll have something!

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Fasteddious: And so we get, “aliens did it”, or “we are in a simulation”, or “anything can happen in the multiverse”, any of which seems more palatable to their atheist presumptions than the idea there might actually be a God who created the world.

    Some of us are just not sure what kind of God you are talking about. A being with no corporeal form, that exists outside of space and time . . . . and how do they affect material reality exactly? I mean how does such a being, IF they exist, interact with physical objects? Doing stuff like that (moving bits around or creating them out of thin air) takes energy. Where does that energy come from? How is it directed?

    Isn’t it all a just so story until you get specific?

  6. 6
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    @5 “Some of us are just not sure what kind of God you are talking about. A being with no corporeal form, that exists outside of space and time . . . . and how do they affect material reality exactly? I mean how does such a being, IF they exist, interact with physical objects? Doing stuff like that (moving bits around or creating them out of thin air) takes energy. Where does that energy come from? How is it directed“

    Your recent statements seem aimed more at the Designer than to the design.
    You could almost say that you are asking purely theological questions, like asking the identity of said designer and also how said designer went about his work.

    By asking theological questions it’s only natural to receive theological answers. Now the ID hypothesis does not go so far as to state with certainty, that the designer is indeed the God if the bible.

    ID’s focus is on the appearance and diversity of life to which they state, couldn’t have come about without some form of intelligence. (They also focus on Darwinism’s inability to account for the appearance and diversity of life).

    This particular OP and other’s of note have I would say framed the question of intelligence in they’re own way.(maybe intentionally, maybe not) to them the intelligence takes the form of directed panspermia, or simulation’s etc. but the point is they are open about the possibility of an intelligence being accountable for the universe and life. Albeit in they’re own naturalistic way.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    “Non-theist intelligent design” is an oxymoron. The only people talking about it are the usual suspects from the Discovery Institute engaging in a collective rationalization trying to convince themselves that ID can be non-theistic. ID reminds me of the est movement in the 70s—it can be whatever you want it to be….

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    ID reminds me of the est movement in the 70s—it can be whatever you want it to be….

    But yet it endorses better science than that taught at any university on the planet.

    That says more about those that hold such opinions than about ID.

    How ironic!

  9. 9
    Eugene says:

    JVL @5,
    > how does such a being, IF they exist, interact with physical objects?

    What do you mean by physical objects? As far as we know, there are no physical objects, there is only a wavefunction, which is basically pure math, and there is consciousness, which we have no idea what it is, and finally there is this dice, which someone somewhere throws every so often so the wavefunctions somehow produce these “physical objects” in our consciousness.

    “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” Niels Bohr
    Now, why would he say that? 🙂

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, non theist ID is very much a reality, there are more worldviews than are dreamt of in your philosophy. On the world of life, there is no inference beyond, per reliable signs, we see intelligently directed configuration. this can be within the cosmos or beyond it, the modern design inference, from the outset [I here refer to Thaxton et al, TMLO], is indifferent. Cosmological design per many dozens of fine tuning objervations — including some in the actual substance of remarks by key critics — implies design that originated the laws, parameters and substance of our only actually observed cosmos. In a sense, that is distinctly and obviously beyond the cosmos, but how is an open question. For key example, Sir Fred Hoyle, pioneer of this thinking from the 1950’s on, was a lifelong agnostic. Though, he did argue publicly that the C-atom is a fix and that the evidence implies monkeying with the basic laws and frameworks of the physical world. KF

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, let’s refocus. If your “mind” is a mere matter of molecules in motion under the influence of blind chance and/or statistical necessity, constrained by the GIGO limits of blind programming on a computational substrate that makes you a jumped up ape from the savannahs of E Africa’s Rift valley (and beyond, jumped up pond scum that solved the problem, somehow of self replication) etc, you are not sufficiently free to have trustworthy free reasoned views. It’s just a matter of the outputs put out by the blindly programmed substrate under whatever GIGO driven circumstances. Self-referential, self-defeating absurdity, as Haldane highlighted and as Crick inadvertently implied. Even Darwin’s monkey mind remarks cannot be confined to abstract speculation, logic and math are just that and undergird empirical sciences. Which Darwin pretty well knew or should have known. Once grand delusion is invited in, rationality collapses. And so, the first place to address mind-matter interaction is not oh how could some ghostly god interfere with the smoothly running mechanical machine, but instead, right there with your own attempted argument. the answer to which is, first, we are self-moved reflexive creatures and we can profitably discuss the Smith Model for a two tier controller cybernetic loop, something you have oftentimes studiously side-stepped. In the case of God, it is more, the root of reality who created the cosmos and sustains it from moment to moment by his world of power — scientific laws, at their best think his creative and providential thoughts after him — will not have a problem with influencing it. Your vision of God is strawmannish, in short. KF

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    Seekers: but the point is they are open about the possibility of an intelligence being accountable for the universe and life. Albeit in they’re own naturalistic way.

    I’m just wondering how all that would work. I don’t see how asking where the energy came from is philosophical.

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Eugene: and finally there is this dice, which someone somewhere throws every so often so the wavefunctions somehow produce these “physical objects” in our consciousness.

    Really. Where is that dice? Who is throwing it? Where does the energy to throw it come from? Who perceives the result and how does that affect the wave functions?

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: In the case of God, it is more, the root of reality who created the cosmos and sustains it from moment to moment by his world of power — scientific laws, at their best think his creative and providential thoughts after him — will not have a problem with influencing it.

    I’m just trying to get my mind around how the influencing works. It would all take energy and I can’t see where that energy would come from, how it would get focused, etc.

    I mean . . . if there is energy or mass just appearing from out of nowhere I would think we would be able to detect that.

  15. 15
    Sandy says:

    I mean . . . if there is energy or mass just appearing from out of nowhere I would think we would be able to detect that.

    Atheists have a golden rule : what they don’t understand do not exist .

  16. 16
    chuckdarwin says:

    #10 Kairofocus
    Admitting that there is a slight element of hyperbole in my initial comment, I do subscribe to the view that ID is, at bottom, a strictly theistic “worldview.” If you buy into the design position as to the origins of the universe, there are only two possibilities, deism or theism. I subscribe to the former and reject the latter. In Stephen Meyer’s newest book, he rejects deism in favor of theism, generally arguing that the designer had to intermittently input information to make life possible because the initial conditions of the universe did not have the constituent makeup to allow life to emerge. He argues, in a convoluted way, that this information could not be “front loaded,” thus deism is rejected. I think this is an incorrect view of deism, a creator powerful and knowledgeable enough to create an entire universe is perfectly capable of anticipating and incorporating every possible contingency related to the origins of life from the get go. But that is an issue for another day.
    Because the leading proponents of intelligent design generally agree with Meyer’s description, a strong argument can be made that theism and intelligent design are co-extensive to the exclusion of any other “world view.” Because deism is explicitly rejected, that leaves only theism as the basis for ID.
    Now, I’m not naïve and understand that ID proponents, will argue that deists implicitly accept ID because, as the OP illustrates, ID folks are always trying to appropriate members from the dark side. But I reject that argument based upon the above.
    But what I was really getting at with my initial comment is the author’s somewhat bizarre attempt to appropriate atheist’s like Tyson, Reese and Loeb (set aside the author’s childish personal attacks–he seems to have major heartburn with the way Elon Musk makes money) into the ID position because they admit to entertaining the idea that life on earth could have been seeded by ETs (shades of 2001: A Space Odyssey come to mind). While those theories explain life, they don’t explain creation of the universe.
    Claiming, like some ID folks do, that ID can even accommodate atheism is ridiculous. That is akin to the vogue–and, once again ridiculous–notion of “Christian atheism” that I have heard a couple people in dark web circles claim. Perhaps agnostics (thus your Hoyle example) but not atheists.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But when a atheist starts asking who the designer is you start getting your knickers in a twist and say that’s not part of ID!

    ID is not about the designer. That has no bearing on the subject at hand. Are you really that stupid?

    IF you really think that some alien come up with some kind of plan for the evolution of life on earth and implemented that plan a long, long time ago (and maybe tinkered around with the actual way things played out) and you can come up with a coherent argument for that with some solid evidence of such a being aside from that which you infer was designed then I think you’ll have something!

    So you are proud to be stupid and ignorant of science. Got it.

    You and yours have NOTHING, JVL. You don’t have a coherent argument. You don’t have any science to support your asinine claims. All you have is your ignorance and stupidity

  18. 18
    ET says:

    chuckdarwin:

    “Non-theist intelligent design” is an oxymoron.

    Only to the willfully ignorant. Nice own goal.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    ID can accommodate atheism because ID does NOT require a belief on God.

    What part of that is CD too stupid to understand?

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    ET: ID is not about the designer. That has no bearing on the subject at hand. Are you really that stupid?

    Different designers would have different capabilities and that would affect or influence what they could accomplish and when. But you never quite get around to saying what happened and when anyway.

    So you are proud to be stupid and ignorant of science. Got it.

    You haven’t presented any science past your (disputed) design inference. People ask for clarification or extensions or even just some hypothesis and get nothing. Except a lot of whining about how ID is only about the design and how main stream scientists are so mean ’cause they have all the money and aren’t sharing.

    IF the only conclusions you can make about the designer comes from examine the design then let’s see if we can at least narrow down when design was implemented. We can do that with human artefacts after all. And knowing when design was implemented gives a lot of insight into how the design implementation developed over time.

    You and yours have NOTHING, JVL. You don’t have a coherent argument. You don’t have any science to support your asinine claims. All you have is your ignorance and stupidity

    And all that grant money and textbooks and journals and academic positions and conferences. Yeah, mainstream evolutionary theory and research is coughing up blood, on it’s last legs, soon to be an ex-theory.

  21. 21
    Sandy says:

    Yeah, mainstream evolutionary theory and research is coughing up blood,

    🙂 Doesn’t have blood because is a scarecrow .

  22. 22
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Different designers would have different capabilities and that would affect or influence what they could accomplish and when.

    And that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What is wrong with you?

    We know the designers’ capabilities by what they leave behind. We would not infer the ancient people could build Stonehenge, for example, if Stonehenge didn’t exist. We would not infer the ancients had the capabilities to produce the Antikythera mechanism if we hadn’t found it.

    But you never quite get around to saying what happened and when anyway.

    Again, your willful ignorance and blatant hypocrisy are not arguments.

    You haven’t presented any science past your (disputed) design inference.

    Why is it disputed? It definitely has never been refuted. No one has any viable, scientific alternative to ID. No one.

    The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. That is in line with archaeology and forensics. Archaeology never really gets around to the who. Forensics may help get the who but usually that comes from detective work. The science of each is in the detection of intelligent design.

    You and yours have NOTHING, JVL. You don’t have a coherent argument. You don’t have any science to support your asinine claims. All you have is your ignorance and stupidity.

    And all that grant money and textbooks and journals and academic positions and conferences. Yeah, mainstream evolutionary theory and research is coughing up blood, on it’s last legs, soon to be an ex-theory.

    There isn’t nay scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that single-celled eukaryotes can evolve into metazoans.

    You are just a willfully ignorant and very gullible fool. You still don’t even understand DNA.

    No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless.

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    ET: And that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What is wrong with you?

    Just saying that the design says something about the designer and the designer tells you something about the design.

    We know the designers’ capabilities by what they leave behind. We would not infer the ancient people could build Stonehenge, for example, if Stonehenge didn’t exist.

    And lots and lots of other ancient structures. Consider ALL the evidence.

    Again, your willful ignorance and blatant hypocrisy are not arguments.

    I am right though, you never, ever quite clearly spell out when you think design was implemented for example.

    Why is it disputed? It definitely has never been refuted.

    You’d have to have been living in a cave without the internet for the past 30 years to think that.

    No one has any viable, scientific alternative to ID. No one.

    Other opinions along with research and journals and experiments and textbooks and research agendas are available. Oh, sorry, my bad: you guys don’t have any of those.

    Archaeology never really gets around to the who.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Archaeology ALWAYS gets around to the ‘general’ who. That’s the whole point! That’s why, in America, it’s part of the Anthropology department. You keep wanting to insist that ‘the who’ is a particular person but NO ONE thinks that way and your argument is a massive straw man.

    There isn’t nay scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that single-celled eukaryotes can evolve into metazoans. You are just a willfully ignorant and very gullible fool. You still don’t even understand DNA. No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless.

    Nice rant. Maybe you should work on studying the design you’ve inferred and try and move on from there. Oh, I forgot, all those nasty, brain-washed scientists and academics and grant giving agencies and journal editors and journal publishers are liars and holding up the party line so they can keep collecting their pay checks. Even though almost none (as a percentage) of them have owned up to that hypocrisy. Even though most of them are not rich or famous or living a life of luxury. If only they would all just wake up and be honest then we could all get on with .. . . uh . . . what is your research agenda? I can’t quite remember what it is?

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Another way archaeology is not at all like ID: archaeologists are always looking for new data and examples. They are in the field, in libraries, in repositories of historical records, looking at aerial photographs, read old books, attending conferences and talking to their peers about their ideas. They seek out and encompass new techniques and technologies. AND they admit when they get it wrong. Sometimes, that does take awhile, of course. But the discipline builds upon past work and new approaches. It’s a pretty new intellectual field but in the last 150 years it has moved on leaps and bounds. What started out as a classical hobby carried out by self-taught book reading aristocrats has developed into a viable, scientifically supported discipline.

    Same with forensics.

    As far as I can see, ID is just not even close to developing as a discipline. There’s just not much going on.

  25. 25
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    Are you actually looking to dialogue or simply to have an idealogical rant.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You’d have to have been living in a cave without the internet for the past 30 years to think that.

    And yet in 2005 evos had to lie and bluff their way through a trial. Clearly you are deluded.

    Other opinions along with research and journals and experiments and textbooks and research agendas are available.

    ID offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

    Archaeology ALWAYS gets around to the ‘general’ who.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    You keep wanting to insist that ‘the who’ is a particular person but NO ONE thinks that way …

    Who is a particular person. Forensics definitely thinks of it that way. And detectives flesh it out.

    But if who isn’t particular then why do you insist that ID gets particular? Hypocrite.

    There isn’t nay scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that single-celled eukaryotes can evolve into metazoans. You are just a willfully ignorant and very gullible fool. You still don’t even understand DNA. No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless.

    Nice rant.

    Facts are not a rant, loser.

    Look, it’s obvious that you are just a clueless dolt with the mind of an infant. You can’t even stay focused on the topic. And you definitely cannot provide any peer reviewed science that refutes any of ID’s claims

  27. 27
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Another way archaeology is not at all like ID: archaeologists are always looking for new data and examples.

    IDists do that. Obviously you are just an ignorant jerk.

    In 0ver 150 years Darwin’s ideas are still nonsense. No one has shown that natural selection is the designer mimic Darwin envisioned. No one has shown there is a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Heck, thanks to evolutionary biology scientists don’t even know what determines biological form!

  28. 28
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    Let me just try and catch up with you here. what your saying or implying rather, is that you (or “mainstream” scientists) have it all figured out.
    They’re just tidying up the detail’s so to speak.

    But then your previous posts go on to say that science should be provisional and open to change if and when the need arises. But your ranting comes off as if science has settled certain matters and it’s all in the journals and textbooks documented over the last 150 years.
    Nothing in your rant gives any impression of an open and willing to change science based on ‘New’ evidence and data. (Which could overturn claims made in those journals and textbooks)

    Also I believe you must be either ignorant or willingly blind to think that ‘People’, which does include scientists, cannot or are not idealogical and hold to they’re own biases, or maybe you only think ID scientists are capable of that .

    Arguments and appeals to authority are not real arguments it’s very easy for a group of people to be victims of
    “Group think” and ignore or brush under the rug, any or all evidence conflicting with they’re interests. (Not claiming everyone is guilty of this). But I believe it reasonable to conclude that at least some people are guilty of letting they’re biases get the better of them.

    If I have misunderstood or misrepresented you let me know and we can continue to dialogue.
    Also I must ask if you are so unconvinced of ID then why waste your time here? Isn’t they plenty of other things you could be getting on with. Just my two cents.

  29. 29
    Truth Will Set You Free says:

    Much of what passes as science today is merely speculation based on preconceived assumptions. And that speculation is ultimately based on FAITH that those preconceived assumptions are true. Atheists/Materialists/Darwinists have an incredible amount of FAITH in unproven, undetected, and even undetectable things.

  30. 30
    Eugene says:

    JVL @13
    > Really. Where is that dice? Who is throwing it?

    We don’t know, and apparently we do not even want to wonder. This is my beef with all these QM (quantum mechanics) textbooks. “And then the wavefunction collapses randomly…”. Seriously? So where does this randomness come from? Where’s the dice and who throws it? No one wants to ask that question publicly. By the way, if “someone” (the Designer?) has control of that dice, then he can interfere in any process in this world, change the outcome, and we won’t even be able to notice the occasional “cheating”. However, this dice is surely out there somewhere.

    >Where does the energy to throw it come from? Who perceives the result and how does that affect the wave functions?

    My humble understanding is that “energy” is just a particular conservable math quantity, which follows from the fact that all the corresponding equations are symmetrical around the time axis. In that sense energy is just math.

    What is amazing is that we have zero evidence that anything actually exists other than math and our own consciousness. Furthermore, we now have rather direct evidence that the elementary building blocks of our world do not actually exist other than in a pure math form.

    Whoever controls the magic dice (the one which collapses wavefunctions) controls this world.

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    ET: And yet in 2005 evos had to lie and bluff their way through a trial. Clearly you are deluded.

    Please point to a specific lie in the testimony at the trial. No generalisations; find a specific lie.

    Who is a particular person. Forensics definitely thinks of it that way. And detectives flesh it out.

    But not in archaeology. Who is just a class of beings or people that lived around a certain time.

    But if who isn’t particular then why do you insist that ID gets particular? Hypocrite.

    I’m not. That’s your misinterpretation which you think is a counterargument. Incorrectly.

    There isn’t nay scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that single-celled eukaryotes can evolve into metazoans. You are just a willfully ignorant and very gullible fool. You still don’t even understand DNA. No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless.

    Nice rant but you’ve already done that.

    Look, it’s obvious that you are just a clueless dolt with the mind of an infant. You can’t even stay focused on the topic. And you definitely cannot provide any peer reviewed science that refutes any of ID’s claims

    When I’ve done that in the past you just say it’s all lies and not true. So why should I try again?

    IDists do that. Obviously you are just an ignorant jerk.

    ID proponents have come up with shockingly little over the last 20 years. A few non-peer reviewed books. A bit of this and that. While at the same time proclaiming that ‘Darwinism’ is on its knees and is just about to fall.

    In 0ver 150 years Darwin’s ideas are still nonsense. No one has shown that natural selection is the designer mimic Darwin envisioned. No one has shown there is a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Heck, thanks to evolutionary biology scientists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    Contrary to loads of published research.

    Since your denialist approach doesn’t seem to be attracting a lot of new converts perhaps you’d like to try something different. Like proposing an ID research agenda.

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    Seekers: Let me just try and catch up with you here. what your saying or implying rather, is that you (or “mainstream” scientists) have it all figured out.
    They’re just tidying up the detail’s so to speak.

    Not at all. Clearly I’ve not presented my view well or you’ve not interpreted it correctly.

    But then your previous posts go on to say that science should be provisional and open to change if and when the need arises. But your ranting comes off as if science has settled certain matters and it’s all in the journals and textbooks documented over the last 150 years.

    Sigh. What I am saying is that unguided evolutionary theory has a long and clear history of research and work and publications and discussion. And, obvious to anyone who has paid attention, the paradigm has had to shift a few times in the last 150 years as you would expect with a real scientific discipline. It’s a real science doing real work and updating its view when new evidence comes around.

    Nothing in your rant gives any impression of an open and willing to change science based on ‘New’ evidence and data. (Which could overturn claims made in those journals and textbooks)

    Perhaps you should read a history of biology so you can see how views and thoughts have HAD to change.

    Also I believe you must be either ignorant or willingly blind to think that ‘People’, which does include scientists, cannot or are not idealogical and hold to they’re own biases, or maybe you only think ID scientists are capable of that .

    Obviously scientists are human beings and sometimes cling on to beliefs or views which have clearly been superseded. It happens. We’re all fallible. But, slowly and sometimes painfully, mainstream science has been shown to eventually get it right. You can point to a number of radicals, dissenters who eventually got their views accepted and that’s a testimonial to the methodology. Yes, sometimes it takes awhile, yes sometimes it goes a bit astray. But, in the end, it gets it right.

    Arguments and appeals to authority are not real arguments it’s very easy for a group of people to be victims of
    “Group think” and ignore or brush under the rug, any or all evidence conflicting with they’re interests. (Not claiming everyone is guilty of this). But I believe it reasonable to conclude that at least some people are guilty of letting they’re biases get the better of them.

    Sure, but this is the whole point of supporting peer review. Let others in your field take a shot at your personal idea or hypothesis. See if it stands up to that kind of scrutiny.

    If I have misunderstood or misrepresented you let me know and we can continue to dialogue.
    Also I must ask if you are so unconvinced of ID then why waste your time here? Isn’t they plenty of other things you could be getting on with. Just my two cents.

    A VERY good question. I think that in order to avoid just getting sucked into a kind of group think, a community where everyone just keeps agreeing with the common mindset, you have to challenge your own ideas and thoughts. I think that you owe it to yourself and those you disagree with to engage in a dialogue. You will find yourself examining your own beliefs much more stringently (as I have done many times over the years based on conversations I’ve had here) and you will be giving your ‘opponents’ their own voice.

    I will tell you right here and right now that I have changed my views based on discussions I’ve had with some individuals here or on their own sites. You will notice myself and ET butt heads a lot but he has changed my view of the idea of nested hierarchy and I no longer argue with him on that point. I have learned things from Upright Biped, Kairosfocus, and Bornagain77 even though we still argue like siblings.

    I don’t know how they view our interactions but I promise you I do take it seriously.

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    Eugene: We don’t know, and apparently we do not even want to wonder.

    Well, I do!! Who wouldn’t?

    This is my beef with all these QM (quantum mechanics) textbooks. “And then the wavefunction collapses randomly…”. Seriously? So where does this randomness come from? Where’s the dice and who throws it? No one wants to ask that question publicly. By the way, if “someone” (the Designer?) has control of that dice, then he can interfere in any process in this world, change the outcome, and we won’t even be able to notice the occasional “cheating”. However, this dice is surely out there somewhere.

    I ascribe to a different interpretation of that phenomenon but I agree it’s an important question to ask.

    My humble understanding is that “energy” is just a particular conservable math quantity, which follows from the fact that all the corresponding equations are symmetrical around the time axis. In that sense energy is just math.

    So . . . was Einstein right? Does energy = mass x speed of light squared?

    What is amazing is that we have zero evidence that anything actually exists other than math and our own consciousness. Furthermore, we now have rather direct evidence that the elementary building blocks of our world do not actually exist other than in a pure math form.

    What arguments do find compelling along these lines?

  34. 34
    EDTA says:

    JVL,
    “As far as I can see, ID is just not even close to developing as a discipline.”

    Not if judged by how much money it has at its disposal. And with that goes all the trappings of an established discipline: textbooks, equipment, mainstream journals, grant money, university departments, and so on.

    With the realization that (alleged) evolutionary trees based on genes do not even come close to mirroring the (alleged) trees based on characteristics, evolutionists need to throw out every clade they produced prior to when? 2010? Now there’s a field that is not gradually homing in on its goal!

  35. 35
    Eugene says:

    JVL @33,

    > So . . . was Einstein right? Does energy = mass x speed of light squared?

    Sure, why not? This follows rather trivially from the metric of our space-time being ds2 = dr2 – dt2.
    See R.C. Henry “The Physics of our Universe” (https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/MULTIF2017_003.pdf) Sections 9-10.

  36. 36
    Origenes says:

    JVL

    JVL: I’m just trying to get my mind around how the influencing works. It would all take energy and I can’t see where that energy would come from, how it would get focused, etc.

    And yet we do know that intelligent design exists. There are physical things that resulted from our ideas; your posting is one example, an airplane another. We don’t know how ideas steer arms and fingers, but we do know that there is a pathway from design (idea) to physical representation.

    JVL: I mean . . . if there is energy or mass just appearing from out of nowhere I would think we would be able to detect that.

    We should consider the possibility that the physical laws are not-closed — as we now know wave functions can collapse in multiple ways and still be consistent with the laws. This opening, this window, at quantum level, may very well be the level at which intelligence steers things; without the possibility of physical detection.

  37. 37
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Please point to a specific lie in the testimony at the trial.

    Ken Miller’s testimony on the alleged evolution of blood clotting is a lie. It is all documented. Barbara Forrest also lied. Just about every evo lied on the stand. It is all documented.

    But not in archaeology. Who is just a class of beings or people that lived around a certain time.

    A class of people is not a who. And the way they “know” humans didit is just cuz humans were around. Not quote scientific.

    I’m not.

    Liar.

    There isn’t nay scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that single-celled eukaryotes can evolve into metazoans. You are just a willfully ignorant and very gullible fool. You still don’t even understand DNA. No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless.

    Nice rant

    Only an ignorant coward would call those facts a rant. And here you are.

    When I’ve done that in the past you just say it’s all lies and not true.

    Liar. No one has ever presented any peer reviewed paper that refutes any of ID’s claims. You are pathetic.

    ID proponents have come up with shockingly little over the last 20 years.

    That is your uneducated opinion. But what has blind watchmaker evolution ever done? Nothing.

    In 0ver 150 years Darwin’s ideas are still nonsense. No one has shown that natural selection is the designer mimic Darwin envisioned. No one has shown there is a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Heck, thanks to evolutionary biology scientists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    >Contrary to loads of published research.

    More lies! It’s as if you are too stupid to actually post something that supports your ignorance.

    Obviously you are just a deluded and gullible fool. You cannot post any blind watchmaker research programs. You can’t point to any research being guided by blind watchmaker evolution. All you can do is lie and bluff.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Sure, but this is the whole point of supporting peer review. Let others in your field take a shot at your personal idea or hypothesis. See if it stands up to that kind of scrutiny.

    The only articles in peer review that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are articles on genetic diseases and deformities.

    You will never find any papers on any bacterial flagellum evolving by means of blind and mindless processes.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    ET: Ken Miller’s testimony on the alleged evolution of blood clotting is a lie. It is all documented. Barbara Forrest also lied. Just about every evo lied on the stand. It is all documented.

    Funny that no one appealed the decision then.

    A class of people is not a who. And the way they “know” humans didit is just cuz humans were around. Not quote scientific.

    Well, you’re not an archaeologist are you?

    There isn’t nay scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. There isn’t any research that demonstrates that single-celled eukaryotes can evolve into metazoans. You are just a willfully ignorant and very gullible fool. You still don’t even understand DNA. No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless.

    You said that already, many times.

    Liar. No one has ever presented any peer reviewed paper that refutes any of ID’s claims. You are pathetic.

    Other opinions are available.

    In 0ver 150 years Darwin’s ideas are still nonsense. No one has shown that natural selection is the designer mimic Darwin envisioned. No one has shown there is a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Heck, thanks to evolutionary biology scientists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    You’ve said that many times before.

    More lies! It’s as if you are too stupid to actually post something that supports your ignorance.

    The question is: can I post something you won’t just decry as lies and false? That’s the real question: is it possible to falsify your view?

    The only articles in peer review that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are articles on genetic diseases and deformities.

    Your determination of what is and what is not scientific is just your opinion. So, in your opinion, the millions of papers and journal articles and books and talks and presentations produced that support unguided evolution you have just decided are wrong. But, that doesn’t mean you are correct.

    You will never find any papers on any bacterial flagellum evolving by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Even if someone came up with a plausible, sensible, step-by-step way it could have happened you’d just say: no one was there to observe it so you don’t know if that’s how it happened.

    You don’t believe in historical science unless it agrees with your views.

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    Origenes: We should consider the possibility that the physical laws are not-closed — as we now know wave functions can collapse in multiple ways and still be consistent with the laws. This opening, this window, at quantum level, may very well be the level at which intelligence steers things; without the possibility of physical detection.

    Well, I’m not sure what all that means to be honest. But if you can lay it out a bit and give a possible mathematical model then we might have something.

  41. 41
    Origenes says:

    @40 JVL
    Perhaps reading post 9 by Gpuccio of the following thread is insightful https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-tells-people-to-stop-saying-they-have-free-will/
    Excerpt:
    Gpuccio

    I absolutely believe in the quantum model of free will. That is, at the consciousness-brain interface, consciousness has a direct connection with the neuronal events, which are largely dependent on quantum level conditions, and consciousness can output some control to those quantum level conditions, so that the final configuration of neuronal events is influenced by the output coming from conscious representations. ….

    Does this model violate the laws of determinism? No. Even if we accept a strong deterministic view

    ….

  42. 42
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Funny that no one appealed the decision then.

    Not really. The involved parties didn’t care.

    Well, you’re not an archaeologist are you?

    That doesn’t change the fact that they “know” humans didit cuz humans were allegedly around.

    In 0ver 150 years Darwin’s ideas are still nonsense. No one has shown that natural selection is the designer mimic Darwin envisioned. No one has shown there is a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Heck, thanks to evolutionary biology scientists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    You’ve said that many times before.

    And you are too stupid or cowardly to actually respond to those facts.

    The question is: can I post something you won’t just decry as lies and false? That’s the real question: is it possible to falsify your view?

    Yes and yes. But the real question is can you post something and actually demonstrate how it supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? You NEVER actually make your case. All you have ever done is post a link and run away.

    Your determination of what is and what is not scientific is just your opinion.

    That is only your opinion. If what I said was just an opinion then you should be able to easily refute it. Yet you can’t. You lose.

    So, in your opinion, the millions of papers and journal articles and books and talks and presentations produced that support unguided evolution you have just decided are wrong.

    There aren’t any such papers. You are a liar or deluded.

    Even if someone came up with a plausible, sensible, step-by-step way it could have happened …

    Wow. You are ignorant of science. In order to be science someone has to demonstrate their plausible pathway isn’t nonsense. Yet scientists can’t even take a population of bacteria that don’t have a flagellum, insert the proper genes and see a flagellum arise!

    Only a scientifically illiterate fool thinks it’s OK to propose something and never test it. And here you are. You still can’t even find the alleged scientific theory of evolution!

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    ET: Not really. The involved parties didn’t care.

    The ID proponents didn’t care that, according to them, the judge misunderstood their case? They didn’t care that the decision in that particular case would influence lots and lots of other potential cases all over the US? Are they stupid?

    That doesn’t change the fact that they “know” humans didit cuz humans were allegedly around.

    You really do not understand archaeology. It shares some techniques with forensic science but the goals are much different.

    And you are too stupid or cowardly to actually respond to those facts.

    I’m not stupid enough to think that if I try once again to respond to your assertions that the outcome will be any different from the previous times.

    Yes and yes. But the real question is can you post something and actually demonstrate how it supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? You NEVER actually make your case. All you have ever done is post a link and run away.

    So I don’t waste your time can you tell me what kind of evidence you would find compelling to show that unguided forces were sufficient to bring about the vast expanse of life on earth?

    That is only your opinion. If what I said was just an opinion then you should be able to easily refute it. Yet you can’t. You lose.

    Again, what kind of evidence, specifically, would you find acceptable?

    There aren’t any such papers. You are a liar or deluded.

    Again, what kind of evidence, specifically, would you find acceptable?

    Wow. You are ignorant of science. In order to be science someone has to demonstrate their plausible pathway isn’t nonsense.

    Again, just because some pathwoy might be plausible what’ to stop you from saying you don’t know that’s what actually happened?

    Yet scientists can’t even take a population of bacteria that don’t have a flagellum, insert the proper genes and see a flagellum arise!

    Inserting a gene would be ID though wouldn’t it? So, are you really saying that no one has been able to demonstrate a potentially millions of year process in the lab in the last 150 years? Also, if such a process was demonstrated would you accept that the mutations involved were unguided?

    The real problem is that you don’t believe in unguided mutations. So there is actually no way to exhibit a process or pathway without you being able to say: but how do you know it was unguided? If you can suggest a way around that roadblock I’d be interested.

    Only a scientifically illiterate fool thinks it’s OK to propose something and never test it. And here you are. You still can’t even find the alleged scientific theory of evolution!

    I think it has been tested and examined and criticised and modified, etc. Again, it seems to me the real issue, for you, comes down to whether or not a particular mutation is guided or unguided. Let’s discuss that point.

    What is your criteria for deciding if a particular mutation is guided or unguided?

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    Origenes: Perhaps reading post 9 by Gpuccio of the following thread is insightful

    I think that the complex state that is consciousness has too much uncertainty in it to be completely determined. There’s too much noise in the system. In that situation the consciousness in question gets to make a call.

    Clearly upbringing and experiences and, maybe, genetics might influence the decision, make one more likely to go a certain way. But chaotic systems cannot be predicted and when a call needs to be made it’s down to the individual. You don’t need to invoke quantum anything to get there.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    JVL, you can’t be this stupid. Not just anyone can appeal a judge’s ruling.

    You really do not understand archaeology.

    I understand it better than you. You can’t even respond to what I post.

    I’m not stupid enough to think that if I try once again to respond to your assertions that the outcome will be any different from the previous times.

    So far all of your “responses” have been total BS. And I have explained why each and every time. That you are too stupid to understand biology and science is on you.

    So I don’t waste your time can you tell me what kind of evidence you would find compelling to show that unguided forces were sufficient to bring about the vast expanse of life on earth?

    Evidence that they can, would be nice. A way to test the claims, would be even better. Start with testable hypotheses. Yet no one can.

    Again, what kind of evidence, specifically, would you find acceptable?

    Objective, scientific evidence. Start with testable hypotheses.

    Again, just because some pathwoy might be plausible what’ to stop you from saying you don’t know that’s what actually happened?

    How do you know it’s a plausible pathway? You don’t until someone actually tests it. As I said, you are ignorant of science.

    Inserting a gene would be ID though wouldn’t it?

    It’s called “proof of concept”. And it’s very telling that you are clueless about it.

    The real problem is that you don’t believe in unguided mutations.

    Wrong again. The real problem is that you are an ignorant troll who couldn’t support the claims of your position is your life depended on it.

    I think it has been tested and examined and criticised and modified, etc.

    Link to it or SHUT UP already.

    Not By Chance was published in 1997. Your ignorance is not an argument. But do tell of the criteria tat determined all mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes.

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    ET: JVL, you can’t be this stupid. Not just anyone can appeal a judge’s ruling.

    The school board in Dover could have.

    So far all of your “responses” have been total BS. And I have explained why each and every time. That you are too stupid to understand biology and science is on you.

    Perhaps you should be clearer on what you would accept as evidence.

    Evidence that they can, would be nice. A way to test the claims, would be even better. Start with testable hypotheses. Yet no one can.

    If a series of experiments and observation suggest a plausible, step-by-step evolutionary path what’s to stop you from saying a) you don’t know that’s what really happened and b) how you do you know those mutations were unguided?

    Objective, scientific evidence. Start with testable hypotheses.

    Got that. And falsifying criteria has been known for 150 years.

    How do you know it’s a plausible pathway? You don’t until someone actually tests it. As I said, you are ignorant of science.

    IF we find one, and it’s tested what’s to stop you from saying a) you don’t know that’s how it happened and b) you don’t know those mutations were unguided?

    It’s called “proof of concept”. And it’s very telling that you are clueless about it.

    I’m well aware of proof of concept. But because some scientists did something in a lab doesn’t mean it happened in nature or that it was unguided does it?

    Wrong again. The real problem is that you are an ignorant troll who couldn’t support the claims of your position is your life depended on it.

    Well, give us a criteria for determine which mutations are guided and which are unguided.

    Not By Chance was published in 1997. Your ignorance is not an argument. But do tell of the criteria tat determined all mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes.

    Fine, then you should be able to state your criteria for which mutations are guided and which are unguided.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The school board in Dover could have.

    True. But seeing they didn’t have any idea what ID is, they didn’t.

    Perhaps you should be clearer on what you would accept as evidence.

    Perhaps you should get an education to learn what evidence and science are. I could not have been clearer. YOU are the problem.

    If a series of experiments and observation suggest a plausible, step-by-step evolutionary path what’s to stop you from saying a) you don’t know that’s what really happened and b) how you do you know those mutations were unguided?

    What experiments? What observations? To date there aren’t any experiments nor observations that support unguided evolution- well except for genetic diseases and deformities. So stop talking from your arse and present the science

    Got that. And falsifying criteria has been known for 150 years.

    The falsifying criteria has been met. What has NEVER happened is a way to test the claim. There has to be something positive. But all we get are lies and bluffs.

    IF we find one, and it’s tested what’s to stop you from saying a) you don’t know that’s how it happened and b) you don’t know those mutations were unguided?

    It is up to YOU and yours to support your claims. You don’t even have any way to determine the mutations are unguided.

    I’m well aware of proof of concept. But because some scientists did something in a lab doesn’t mean it happened in nature or that it was unguided does it?

    You just proved that you do NOT understand proof of concept. Nice own goal.

    Well, give us a criteria for determine which mutations are guided and which are unguided.

    You first, What is the criteria used to determine the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes?

  48. 48
    ET says:

    One can falsify ID by demonstrating that blind and mindless processes suffice to account for life and the genetic code.

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    ET: True. But seeing they didn’t have any idea what ID is, they didn’t.

    People who knew about ID could have advised and encouraged them. Heck Dr Behe testified at the trial so he must have thought the case had merit. But no one even attempted to continue the fight.

    Perhaps you should get an education to learn what evidence and science are. I could not have been clearer. YOU are the problem.

    Rather that waste your time I was just hoping to get some guidance as to what you’d accept as evidence. You want evidence that unguided processes are capable of doing what is claimed but when someone presents the evidence as is widely accepted you say it’s not good enough. So, I’d like to know, what kind of evidence are you interested in? What form would it take? A plausible step-by-step genetic pathway? And would you then say either a) you don’t know if that’s what actually happened or b) how do you know the mutations were unguided? So, really, I’m asking how anyone could reply to those two possible objections? Again, it’s in your interest to address these things so that no one wastes your time with insufficient evidence.

    What experiments? What observations? To date there aren’t any experiments nor observations that support unguided evolution- well except for genetic diseases and deformities. So stop talking from your arse and present the science

    So, you think genetic diseases and deformities are unguided? Are they random? And, again, how can you tell if a mutation is guided or unguided? According to you since you’re the one who thinks there’s a difference.

    It is up to YOU and yours to support your claims. You don’t even have any way to determine the mutations are unguided.

    Since mutations have been observed and since most of them do not convey a fitness benefit to the life form in question then why would anyone assume that the beneficial ones were guided instead of just being randomly good?

    You first, What is the criteria used to determine the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes?

    Most of them are either deleterious or neutral with respect to the health or fitness of the individuals affected and they ‘arrive’ at unpredictable intervals. So there is no reason to assume that the rare beneficial ones are directed. And there is no known way to generate beneficial mutations. And there is no known agency that can impose beneficial mutations.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    JVL:

    People who knew about ID could have advised and encouraged them.

    Educated people understand that science can’t be adjudicated. But Dr Behe educates Judge Jones

    Rather that waste your time I was just hoping to get some guidance as to what you’d accept as evidence.

    Present what you have and make your case. All you have been doing is wasting time. Get on with it!

    You want evidence that unguided processes are capable of doing what is claimed but when someone presents the evidence as is widely accepted you say it’s not good enough

    Liar

    A plausible step-by-step genetic pathway?

    Again, how does anyone know it’s plausible? What is wrong with you?

    So, you think genetic diseases and deformities are unguided? Are they random? And, again, how can you tell if a mutation is guided or unguided? According to you since you’re the one who thinks there’s a difference.

    Yes. Yes. An intelligently designed life would have the capability to adapt and evolve. The only ay to say that all mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes is to show that life arose via blind and mindless processes.

    Since mutations have been observed and since most of them do not convey a fitness benefit to the life form in question then why would anyone assume that the beneficial ones were guided instead of just being randomly good?

    Wow. Variation is the spice of life.

    Most of them are either deleterious or neutral with respect to the health or fitness of the individuals affected and they ‘arrive’ at unpredictable intervals. So there is no reason to assume that the rare beneficial ones are directed. And there is no known way to generate beneficial mutations. And there is no known agency that can impose beneficial mutations.

    Dr. Spetner discussed your concerns decades ago.

    And the way you speak of it, it is beyond a miracle that differential accumulations of genetic change produced the diversity of life! Too bad you can’t follow your implications to the logical conclusion.

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    ET: Educated people understand that science can’t be adjudicated.

    The court case said the local education authority could not put those stickers on the biology books. And it declared that ID was not science.

    Again, how does anyone know it’s plausible? What is wrong with you?

    Plausible meaning that the individual steps have been observed to occur so that a path made of observed steps is plausible.

    Yes. Yes. An intelligently designed life would have the capability to adapt and evolve. The only ay to say that all mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes is to show that life arose via blind and mindless processes.

    IF the mutations are unguided then the variety that is exploited by natural selection is unguided which means the whole process is unguided.

    Again, what example or demonstration would you accept as indicative of life arising via blind and mindless processes?

    Dr. Spetner discussed your concerns decades ago.

    Fine, you should be able to give a brief summary of his work. Not everyone who is reading this will have access to his books so it would be good to make sure everyone knows what you are talking about.

    And the way you speak of it, it is beyond a miracle that differential accumulations of genetic change produced the diversity of life! Too bad you can’t follow your implications to the logical conclusion.

    Why is it beyond a miracle? Why can’t a lot of small steps add up to a big difference?

  52. 52
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The court case said the local education authority could not put those stickers on the biology books. And it declared that ID was not science.

    So you are stupid. A judge cannot decide is something is science or not. Clearly you are a moron.

    Plausible meaning that the individual steps have been observed to occur so that a path made of observed steps is plausible.

    No one can show that in the case of any multi-protein structure. No one has ever shown that with any multi-protein structure.

    Look, moron, this is all moot as genetic change can only produce variations within a population. The DNA model is a complete failure with respect to anything other than that. Your continued ignorance of genetics will NEVER be an argument. And all you have is your ignorance of genetics, biology and science.

    It’s beyond a miracle because you don’t have a mechanism capable of doing it. No one is trying to figure out how or if blind and mindless processes didit. That’s because no one knows how to do such a thing.

  53. 53
    JVL says:

    ET: So you are stupid. A judge cannot decide is something is science or not. Clearly you are a moron.

    I didn’t say it was right; I just repeated its proclamation. Considering that it was widely considered to set back the ‘ID cause’ I would have thought someone would have appealed the decision. No skin off my back, I’m just surprised.

    No one can show that in the case of any multi-protein structure. No one has ever shown that with any multi-protein structure.

    You asked me what I meant by plausible and I replied.

    Look, moron, this is all moot as genetic change can only produce variations within a population. The DNA model is a complete failure with respect to anything other than that. Your continued ignorance of genetics will NEVER be an argument. And all you have is your ignorance of genetics, biology and science.

    Variations within a population is what selection acts upon creating differential survival rates. That’s part of the basic idea: inheritable physical variations encourage different survival rates. Works for artificial selection as well.

    It’s beyond a miracle because you don’t have a mechanism capable of doing it. No one is trying to figure out how or if blind and mindless processes didit. That’s because no one knows how to do such a thing.

    Various kinds of selection (and some dumb luck!) acting on inheritable variation (via genetics) produce differential survival rates. Seems pretty clear to me.

    Oh, just to remind you: you haven’t yet said how it can be determined if a mutation is guided or unguided. In case you’ve forgotten.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    Look, moron, this is all moot as genetic change can only produce variations within a population. The DNA model is a complete failure with respect to anything other than that. Your continued ignorance of genetics will NEVER be an argument. And all you have is your ignorance of genetics, biology and science.

    I see that you are too stupid to understand that. Not surprised at all.

    Variations within a population is what selection acts upon creating differential survival rates. That’s part of the basic idea: inheritable physical variations encourage different survival rates. Works for artificial selection as well.

    Clueless. Variations in populations of prokaryotes just produce differing prokaryotes. Genetic change cannot get you beyond populations of prokaryotes.

    Oh, just to remind you: you haven’t yet said how it can be determined if a mutation is guided or unguided. In case you’ve forgotten.

    Others have. And just to remind you- all you have is your ignorance and bluffing, with some lies thrown in. Mutations are irrelevant for all of the reasons provided. Mutations cannot be the source of the variation required for universal common descent.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Considering that it was widely considered to set back the ‘ID cause’…

    By morons and losers. The reality is the case didn’t have any affect on ID at all.

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    ET: Look, moron, this is all moot as genetic change can only produce variations within a population.

    Yes, and some physiological variations give those exhibiting them a reproductive advantage.

    The DNA model is a complete failure with respect to anything other than that. Your continued ignorance of genetics will NEVER be an argument. And all you have is your ignorance of genetics, biology and science.

    Changes in DNA sometimes create changes in physiology. Sometimes those changes are beneficial to the individuals with those changes. Beneficial in that they are able to leave more offspring. Simple, easy.

    Clueless. Variations in populations of prokaryotes just produce differing prokaryotes. Genetic change cannot get you beyond populations of prokaryotes.

    Some prokaryotes do form colonies and start to exhibit characteristics of multi-celled creatures. I admit that’s one part of evolutionary theory I’m not as current with but I do know that there are suggestions of how that line might have been crossed without any kind of intelligent intervention. So, those who are proposing those suggestions are looking into those situations.

    Others have.

    It would be illustrative if you could link to a good general introduction to the methods of deciding between guided and unguided mutations. I’d like that and I suspect other readers would as well.

    And just to remind you- all you have is your ignorance and bluffing, with some lies thrown in. Mutations are irrelevant for all of the reasons provided. Mutations cannot be the source of the variation required for universal common descent.

    Mutations can introduce physiological changes. What kind of variations, not caused by mutations, are you thinking of? Epigenetics? That too is better understood now than it was 40 years ago.

    By morons and losers. The reality is the case didn’t have any affect on ID at all.

    Odd that no one has brought another court case trying to push ID into the classrooms. Sounds like it had a large chilling effect.

  57. 57
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Yes, and some physiological variations give those exhibiting them a reproductive advantage.

    Microevolutionary changes that in no way will ever add up to macroevolution.

    Changes in DNA sometimes create changes in physiology. Sometimes those changes are beneficial to the individuals with those changes. Beneficial in that they are able to leave more offspring. Simple, easy.

    Changes to DNA can NEVER produce the diversity of life. Period.

    Some prokaryotes do form colonies and start to exhibit characteristics of multi-celled creatures. I admit that’s one part of evolutionary theory I’m not as current with but I do know that there are suggestions of how that line might have been crossed without any kind of intelligent intervention. So, those who are proposing those suggestions are looking into those situations.

    No. There isn’t anything but a need for such a transition. Then from single-celled eukaryote to metazoan is another insurmountable obstacle. No one knows what such a thing would take to accomplish. There isn’t anything in genetics that helps.

    It would be illustrative if you could link to a good general introduction to the methods of deciding between guided and unguided mutations. I’d like that and I suspect other readers would as well.

    “Not By Chance”. Basically all you have to call unguided are point mutations. But if someone demonstrates that blind and mindless processes can produce living organisms then you win.

    Mutations can introduce physiological changes. What kind of variations, not caused by mutations, are you thinking of? Epigenetics? That too is better understood now than it was 40 years ago.

    Mutations account for microevolutionary events that in no way can ever accumulate to a macroevolutionary event. A better beetle will still be a beetle. Better bacteria will still be bacteria. Better hawks will still be hawks. Better finches will still be finches.

    Odd that no one has brought another court case trying to push ID into the classrooms. Sounds like it had a large chilling effect.

    Wow. The court case came about because ID was just suggested. That is how desperate people like you are. You can’t have your bullshit challenged. Pathetic really.

    As Dr Behe said in his response to Judge Jones:

    The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the
    conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a
    theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman
    arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for
    Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design.

    All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are
    not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judge’s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before,
    the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would
    immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design
    explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.

    If there is a next court case it ain’t going to go so well for the evos. All the lies, equivocations and bluffs from the Dover trial have been fully exposed.

  58. 58
    Sandy says:

    @ET:
    Maybe Jesus doesn’t need this kind of “help” you are offering . You lost your inner peace and you make atheists to be radical atheists. (???)
    If you can’t do this job with peace better quit. Write a book. You have many interesting ideas.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    Sandy- Intelligent Design is not about Jesus.

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    Sandy, although ET is certainly ‘rough around the edges’, ET has, day in and day out, and for years I might add, been a very able defender of the science of ID here on UD.

    Atheists, and you, may not like his style one bit, but then again, the science itself could care less about his style. Science is, first and foremost, about truth, not style.

    IMHO, ET has a gift for succinctly summarizing complex thoughts into single sentences. And as I’ve said before, more often than not, ET can say more in one sentence than an entire lab full of PhDs can say in an entire peer-reviewed article.

    Thus, you may not like ET’s style one bit, but by golly, ‘he’s OUR ET”, and I, for one, am quite happy that he has decided to fight Darwinian atheists here on UD for as long as he has.

  61. 61
    Querius says:

    Nicely stated, Bornagain77. I understand the frustration ET exhibits in view of some of the disingenuous assertions and ignorant responses that appear on UD.

    Regarding mutations, I don’t remember in what book or paper I read it, but there seems to be a minimum number of identical mutations for a mutation not to die out within a population merely through chance events.

    Marshall in his book, Evolution 2.0, makes the case that mutation is the weakest source of micro-evolutionary variation in a genome (he describes a total of five or six).

    At this point, the case for macro-evolution is still pure speculation and the many tiny, gradual changes required by Darwin have simply never been observed in the “fossil record.”

    -Q

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Thank You, PC/ BA77

  63. 63
    Sandy says:

    ET
    Sandy- Intelligent Design is not about Jesus

    Well… Atheists are openly against Jesus /God while ask to ID proponents to let aside Jesus/God and focus on science. 🙂

    Sandy, although ET is certainly ‘rough around the edges’, ET has, day in and day out, and for years I might add, been a very able defender of the science of ID here on UD.

    Do you know one atheist that ET converted
    to ID ? Atheists are here for fun. ID people for truth. Fun and truth are not synonimes.
    If ET wants seriosness from atheists maybe he is not as smart as he thinks he is.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Sandy, I know that I’m very quickly starting to not take you seriously.

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    Sandy:

    It’s not my place to say but after years of butting heads with ET over many issues (including some he’s changed my mind about) I don’t think he needs any correcting from you. He is who he is; unfailingly honest and straight. You always know exactly where you stand with him.

    I will continue to disagree with him on many issues but, in my opinion, he is as honest as they come. And that does matter.

  66. 66
    JVL says:

    Anyway, back to the discussion . . .

    ET: Microevolutionary changes that in no way will ever add up to macroevolution.

    Why can’t a lot of little steps add up to some big change?

    Changes to DNA can NEVER produce the diversity of life. Period.

    Really? Different bodily structures are built with different protein sequences and the order those sequences are constructed come from DNA. So . . . different DNA sequences build different protein sequences.

    No. There isn’t anything but a need for such a transition. Then from single-celled eukaryote to metazoan is another insurmountable obstacle. No one knows what such a thing would take to accomplish. There isn’t anything in genetics that helps.

    Are you sure? For example there are multiple ideas of how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_of_eukaryotes

    Not saying that any of those are true for sure but scientists are proposing and exploring different ideas.

    “Not By Chance”. Basically all you have to call unguided are point mutations. But if someone demonstrates that blind and mindless processes can produce living organisms then you win.

    For those readers who do not have access to “Not By Chance” it would be helpful if you could summarise the explanation of how it’s possible to distinguish between guided and unguided mutations.

    Mutations account for microevolutionary events that in no way can ever accumulate to a macroevolutionary event. A better beetle will still be a beetle. Better bacteria will still be bacteria. Better hawks will still be hawks. Better finches will still be finches.

    Again, why can’t a bunch of small steps add up to a big change?

    Wow. The court case came about because ID was just suggested. That is how desperate people like you are. You can’t have your bullshit challenged. Pathetic really.

    I don’t think that’s quite true but it’s probably best to just leave it.

    If there is a next court case it ain’t going to go so well for the evos. All the lies, equivocations and bluffs from the Dover trial have been fully exposed.

    But there isn’t going to be another course case is there? The ID crowd has realised they can’t win in that realm.

  67. 67
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Why can’t a lot of little steps add up to some big change?

    Because changing colors of eyes don’t account for eyes. There aren’t any known microevolutionary events that can be added up to macroevolution. An albino dwarf with sickle-cell anemia is still a human.

    Really? Different bodily structures are built with different protein sequences and the order those sequences are constructed come from DNA. So . . . different DNA sequences build different protein sequences.

    What? CELLS build the body structures. Proteins are inside of cells. Proteins don’t even determine what type of cell it is.

    Again, DNA is just a template. It doesn’t even say how mRNA is processed. And most proteins require chaperones to fold properly, so the sequence doesn’t determine the protein’s shape. You are just really, really ignorant of biology.

    Are you sure? For example there are multiple ideas of how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes?

    I know about the ideas. They are all based on the need. No one has been able to do anything further than guess.

    For those readers who do not have access to “Not By Chance” it would be helpful if you could summarise the explanation of how it’s possible to distinguish between guided and unguided mutations.

    The only way to say mutations are unguided is if unguided nature produced living organisms. Get to work.

    Again, why can’t a bunch of small steps add up to a big change?

    Reality gets in the way. Genetics and biology 101

    I don’t think that’s quite true but it’s probably best to just leave it.

    Again with your ignorance. The court case came about because the school board had a brief statement read in biology class. That statement mentioned ID. That was it.

    But there isn’t going to be another course case is there? The ID crowd has realised they can’t win in that realm.

    Wow. Seeing that all evos can do is lie, bluff and equivocate, and we now know their only tactic, there isn’t any way evos want another go.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    Thanks, Sandy! I am not looking to convert anyone. I am here responding to the nonsense posted by ID’s detractors. I don’t want anyone reading their comments to think they have any merit.

    And yes, I should write a book about it. Someone needs to expose the lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations of the evolution lobby.

  69. 69
    Sandy says:

    JVL
    I will continue to disagree with him on many issues but, in my opinion, he is as honest as they come. And that does matter.

    :)You “missed the point ” as always. It’s not about ET’s honestity it’s about atheists perfidy and falsity .

Leave a Reply