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

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 25, 2021

Big Bang, Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design}

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

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:

Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology (co-author John Gribbin), 1989, Bantam; ISBN 0-553-34740-3
New Perspectives in Astrophysical Cosmology, 1995; ISBN 0-521-64544-1
Gravity’s Fatal Attraction: Black Holes in the Universe, 1995; ISBN 0-7167-6029-0, 2nd edition 2009, ISBN 0-521-71793-0
Before the Beginning – Our Universe and Others, 1997; ISBN 0-7382-0033-6
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 1999; ISBN 0-297-84297-8
Our Cosmic Habitat, 2001; ISBN 0-691-11477-3
Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind’s Future In This Century—On Earth and Beyond (UK title: Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century?), 2003; ISBN 0-465-06862-6

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.

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.

Comments

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 .Sandy_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Well Sandy, I know that I'm very quickly starting to not take you seriously.bornagain77_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

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.Sandy_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Thank You, PC/ BA77ET_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

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." -QQuerius_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Sandy- Intelligent Design is not about Jesus.ET_{October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

@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.Sandy_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

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?JVL_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

One can falsify ID by demonstrating that blind and mindless processes suffice to account for life and the genetic code.ET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

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?ET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

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?JVL_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

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!ET_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

@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 ....
Origenes_{October 27, 2021
October
10
Oct
27
27
2021
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{October 27, 2021
October
10
Oct
27
27
2021
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply