Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Science” is working on it!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dawkins is clearly a fading star in a world in which modern science, technology — and especially computational and information theory — have relegated him to the status of a vestigial remain of the 19th century.

Richard Dawkins: Science doesn’t yet know how everything started. And as I said last time, they’re working on it.

Dawkins’ logic and grammar are strangely confused. Science is not a person, and therefore doesn’t “know” anything.

Of course, “they” are still “working on” how inanimate matter spontaneously generated complex information-processing software and hardware, just as the alchemists were “working on” how chemical reactions could turn lead into gold.

The only problem is, lead can’t be turned into gold with chemical reactions; it doesn’t work that way. And non-living matter can’t be made to come alive without design, engineering, and an infusion of information that must come from a mind. These are the lessons that legitimate science has revealed in the latter-half of the 20th century, and which will eventually propel Dawkins and his prophet Darwin to the summit of the ash heap of the history of junk science.

Comments
dmullenix, You're confusing academic freedom with freedom of speech. Anyone can say almost anything. The very existence of the term "academic freedom" indicates that it is distinguishable from freedom of speech.ScottAndrews
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
dmullenix: Academic freedom means that you can certainly disagree, and that you can certainly express your disagreement in the appropriate places, like in scientific literature, at congresses and meetings, and so on. Possibly, with the respect that is always due to a colleague. It certainly does not mean that you sign infamous letters whose only aim is to publicly discredit a colleague who has scientific opinions that differ from yours, or publishing infamous disclaimers on the university site to state that you disdain your colleague and in no way want to be associated with him, not even for working at the same cultural institution, as though your coleague were a leper, or worse. The behaviour of some of Behe's colleagues and of his institution (or at least part of it) is a shame for science, for free thought and simply for human values. Never in my life as a scientist have I seen such a shameful behaviour by people who call themselves "scientists".gpuccio
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
PaV: At LeHigh University, home of Dr. Behe, the leading proponent of IC, all members of the biochemistry faculty signed a letter saying they disavowed his views. Let’s just call this “academic freedom”. Are you implying that academic freedom means that nobody can disagree with you?dmullenix
October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Clive, The use of the term "evolution" is an unending source of frustration. What does this mean? It is really a bait-and-switch tactic. I believe that evolution occurred, if it means that living systems have changed over time. But smuggled into the term "evolution" is the underlying implication that chance and necessity (the Darwinian hypothesis) can explain everything. I accept the former but reject the latter, because it makes no sense, and, as far as I am concerned, has been categorically falsified as a reasonable hypothesis for that which it attempts to explain. It just occurred to me that there is another interesting analogy between alchemy as it concerns the nucleus of the atom, and ID as it concerns the nucleus of the cell. In both cases the nuclei revealed the impossibility of the proposed mechanisms as a suitable explanation. In the case of alchemy I've already explained it. In the case of the nucleus of the cell, the discovery that it is a storehouse of highly complex, functionally integrated information gives the lie to the Darwinian mechanism, which is transparently wholly inadequate to the task, and categorically inappropriate.GilDodgen
October 10, 2011
October
10
Oct
10
10
2011
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
woodford,
The question then is, is the ID movement going to look essentially the same in 10 or 20 years time? Or will it grow in PR and influence but still have no real solid science ready to replace evolution
http://www.evoinfo.org/ http://www.signatureinthecell.com/ You really are behind in your knowledge of ID.Clive Hayden
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
This is perfectly analogous to the alchemy example. The alchemists noted the similarities between lead and gold, especially that they are very dense metals. Enough was known about chemistry (which turned out to be the interaction of electrons) that it was thought that chemical reactions might turn lead into gold.
I'm not a science historian, but wasn't the demise of alchemy at least in part to the ascendency of a new understanding of chemistry in the 18th century from which is was apparent that alchemy was not a viable physical transformation? The question then here, is if Darwinism is in decline, what is ascendant? And even if Dawkins himself is a fading star (and I expect in time his output will of course diminish simply because of age), is acceptance of evolution at least among scientists on the decline? Are Universities abandoning teaching evolution in favor of something else? I'm not aware that is happening. Sure, there may be an increase in popular interest in ID (which I suspect is mostly confined to the USA), but is that a sign of an inflection point in the science too? Again, I'm no historian, but it seems that science abhors a vacuum, and if evolution is in trouble, it isn't clear that anything much is the wings ready to replace it. The question then is, is the ID movement going to look essentially the same in 10 or 20 years time? Or will it grow in PR and influence but still have no real solid science ready to replace evolution (or at least those parts ID deem need to be replaced). Perhaps there is going to be a research breakthrough or a new model discovered, but again there doesn't seem much sign of this - unless this is happening behind the scenes?woodford
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
As to what ID can do, or has done, it is a little bit difficult to carry out experiments when anyone attempting to publish an article refuting the Darwinian establishment would be run out of academe. At LeHigh University, home of Dr. Behe, the leading proponent of IC, all members of the biochemistry faculty signed a letter saying they disavowed his views. Let’s just call this “academic freedom”.
Sorry but that sounds like an excuse. ID proponents can easily self-publish on the Web nowadays through any number of channels - the Discovery Institute, this web site, Biologic and many, many other places. And funding should be possible too through organizations such as the Discovery Institute. And don't forget that even though Behe may not have the support of his colleagues, he hasn't actually been asked to leave and still publishes books and papers.woodford
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Woodford:
But my point is that even if there are failed experiments around evolution, experimentation is being done. There’s seem a dearth of it on the ID side. For example, if IC is a reality why is it we only seem to have about 10 examples. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect tens of thousands and they we would be discovering them all the time. I guess the closest thing ID has to a research arm is the Biologic Institute but their output so far seems scant. Maybe that will change in time.
Let me change things around for you, to help you gain perspective: "For example, if [Darwinian evolution] is a reality why is it we only seem to have [no] examples [of macroevolution]. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect tens of thousands [of new species cropping up that would form genera and families] and they we would be discovering them all the time." Darwinism is a failed hypothesis. It has been demonstrated no where. As to what ID can do, or has done, it is a little bit difficult to carry out experiments when anyone attempting to publish an article refuting the Darwinian establishment would be run out of academe. At LeHigh University, home of Dr. Behe, the leading proponent of IC, all members of the biochemistry faculty signed a letter saying they disavowed his views. Let's just call this "academic freedom". What is necessary is for biologists, and the entire biological community, to begin approaching their fields of study with a fresh new way of thinking. Once ID is accepted as the most reasonable explanation for living beings, then, and only then, will we see scientists begin designing and implementing laboratory studies based on ID principles. There is a story told of St. Augustine that he once was at ocean's edge and saw a young boy digging a hole in the sand, and then taking a bucket, filling it with sea water, and pouring it down the hole he had dug. Augustine asked the child what he was doing. The child answered that he was trying to pour the sea down into the hole. Augustine told the child this was impossible; to which the child responded that it was just as impossible for St. Augustine to fully understand the mystery of the Blessed Trinity (which St. Augustine was attempting to do at the time). To try and explain the vast diversity (let alone the origin) of life using Darwinian theory is like that little child trying to pour the Mediterranean Sea into that little hole. It ain't going to happen! So why waste our time trying to do so?PaV
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
The trajectory of the evidence is what matters. If Darwinism is true (that chance and necessity, i.e., purely mechanistic processes can account for all we observe in biological reality) then the more we learn, the more powerful, persuasive, and conclusive the Darwinian hypothesis should become. But the exact opposite has occurred. The more we learn, the more improbable and fantastic the Darwinian hypothesis becomes. This is perfectly analogous to the alchemy example. The alchemists noted the similarities between lead and gold, especially that they are very dense metals. Enough was known about chemistry (which turned out to be the interaction of electrons) that it was thought that chemical reactions might turn lead into gold. What the alchemists didn't know was that the essential difference between lead and gold resided in the nucleus of the atom -- the number of protons (and the number of neutrons, which define an isotope of a chemical element). Chemistry only involves the interactions of electrons orbiting the nucleus, and therefore no chemical reaction can ever transform one chemical element into another. The entire alchemical theory was based on a categorical misunderstanding of the nature of nature. The analogy with the origin and evolution of life is the following: Life is not fundamentally based on chemistry (although chemical reactions do play a role). Life is fundamentally based on a base-four digitally controlled and encoded information-processing and manufacturing process, with error detection and repair algorithms. And, as we learn more, this appears to be the most trivial basis of the engineering involved in even a simple cell. Add to this the meta-information that would be required to change a "simple" cell into you, me, or Mozart. Based on the discoveries of modern science, the Darwinian hypothesis of chance and necessity as an explanation for the origin of, and the evolution of living systems, is categorically inappropriate. It is for these reasons that I describe Dawkins as a fading star. Of course, he has a large following of devotees who seem to consider him some kind of profit. (Oops, I misspelled that, although Dawkins has made a lot of profit from his prophesies about how Darwinism will eventually explain everything.) Dawkins is a fading star in the sense that modern science has not come to the rescue of his philosophy as he expected. It is incrementally discrediting it, and at an accelerating pace.GilDodgen
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Here's the biggest complaint Woodford. Evolutionists should use experimentation which employs all the primo important evolutionary philosophical componants, as in blind undirectedness, no guidance and dump the purpose and intent. Please leave all Intelligent Design aspects out of it and don't lable intelligent fingerprints of scientists and their manipulating research assistants evolution. They should be forced to adhere to their number one article of faith, "No Intelligencce Allowed".Eocene
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
And yet we will never shown their favourite sterile dirt watching/observing experiment because they’ll come off as bigger fools than when they hijack intelligent designing concepts/tools and lable these evolutionary. Gerald Joyce of RNA-World myth fame is just such a rising star.
I can't say I'm familiar with Gerald Joyce and this particular experiment. But my point is that even if there are failed experiments around evolution, experimentation is being done. There's seem a dearth of it on the ID side. For example, if IC is a reality why is it we only seem to have about 10 examples. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect tens of thousands and they we would be discovering them all the time. I guess the closest thing ID has to a research arm is the Biologic Institute but their output so far seems scant. Maybe that will change in time.woodford
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Woodford: "I can understand that for Gil with his own particular faith position it is settled for him, but for those without that lens of faith it most certainly is not." === Yet Atheistic/Evolutionist thinking is loaded with nothing but massive amounts of Faith-Based statement making as Dawkins readily chants what every other evolutionists chants when no real factual answers are to be found. Dawkins: "Science doesn’t yet know how everything started. And as I said last time, they’re working on it." ---- GilDogen: "Dawkins’ logic and grammar are strangely confused. Science is not a person, and therefore doesn’t “know” anything." ==== And yet an atheist/evolutionist will often attribute personification attributes to everything they explain. Why ??? This is why! ---- GilDogen: "Of course, “they” are still “working on” how inanimate matter spontaneously generated complex information-processing software and hardware, . . " ==== And yet we will never shown their favourite sterile dirt watching/observing experiment because they'll come off as bigger fools than when they hijack intelligent designing concepts/tools and lable these evolutionary. Gerald Joyce of RNA-World myth fame is just such a rising star.Eocene
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
I always thought Dawkins' god was called "Sarnce" or "Sance" but now i see that he was saying "science". My mistake.Mytheos
October 9, 2011
October
10
Oct
9
09
2011
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Dawkins is clearly a fading star in a world in which modern science, technology — and especially computational and information theory — have relegated him to the status of a vestigial remain of the 19th century.
If one's latest book (which is strictly a children's book) is #4 on the Amazon science list, I'm not that means one is exactly a fading start. Whatever you may think, certainly he is still selling books.
Science doesn’t yet know how everything started. And as I said last time, they’re working on it.
And neither does Intelligent Design either. Sure there's a hypothesis, and perhaps even a legitimate one about how design must have been involved, but almost no experimental validation or confirmation. It certainly does not qualify as settled "revealed" science at this stage. Perhaps in time it will, but much work needs to be done. I can understand that for Gil with his own particular faith position it is settled for him, but for those without that lens of faith it most certainly is not. Perhaps in time it will be, but as said before, much work remains. Gil's dogma is premature.woodford
October 8, 2011
October
10
Oct
8
08
2011
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply