Science’s Blind Spot

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy. Evolutionists also limit themselves. They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot. Read more

Comments

We can be fairly certain that life will look different in 200 million years. We can fairly dispute that. Sharks and crocodiles and a lot of other species are presumed to have been around for 200 million years without significant change. Regarding the ones presumed not to have been you can't point to the macroevolutionary event that caused them to come about nor can you predict how macroevolution will cause them to change nor when will it cause the change. The better predication would be to look at the fossil record and presume no significant change (see crocodile, shark) unless you count extinction as a change. But that wouldn't be a marcroevolutionary event. Mainstream physicists pretty much agree that the net energy content of the universe is zero. Try Googling “net energy of universe”. And when I do I find this link indicating they don't, and that even those sympathetic to the concept aren't using it in the way you imply (i.e. energy coming into existence via natural law.) But I do think with this one it is safe to crown you the king of irony :-) You believe it is very much unscientific to dispute the existence of macroevolution while feeling it is perfectly acceptable to do so with the First Law of Thermodynamics.tribune7_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Fair enough. Not to change the subject, but how does mental phenomena play into being “regular”?
I note that intact brains appear to be a prerequisite for mental phenomena, and that aging and damaged brains appear to have impaired mental phenomena. Other than that I have little idea how mental phenomena arise. I envy those who have figured it out.Petrushka_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
Of course. My definition is simplistic, but I define nature as the realm of regular phenomena, those amenable to study by science.
Fair enough. Not to change the subject, but how does mental phenomena play into being "regular"?Clive Hayden_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

I reckon that depends on how you define nature and supernature.
Of course. My definition is simplistic, but I define nature as the realm of regular phenomena, those amenable to study by science. It is not certain whether the big bang fits in this compartment, but apparently everything after the first Planck division of time does.Petrushka_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
At some point one might be justified in invoking supernatural creation, but the big bang is not necessarily that point.
I reckon that depends on how you define nature and supernature.Clive Hayden_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

We can, however, — another example of your wonderful sense of irony — predict that “since macroevolution doesn’t happen life will not be significantly different 10, 20, 50 or 200 years from now”
True, because the radiation of new species generally happens after a major extinction event. We can be fairly certain that life will look different in 200 million years. (About one third the time since the Cambrian.) Assuming a mass extinction event.
The creation of the energy/matter would be an undisputed supernatural event since its creation indisputably violates natural law.
Mainstream physicists pretty much agree that the net energy content of the universe is zero (and that means the net mass is also effectively zero). Try Googling "net energy of universe". At some point one might be justified in invoking supernatural creation, but the big bang is not necessarily that point.Petrushka_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac,
If you’re implying that consciousness itself is supernatural, and therefore anything consciousness causes is supernatural, then almost everything in our daily experience – computers, cars, roads, coke bottles – is supernatural, rendering the term meaningless.
I see what you mean. I never claimed that the effects of consciousness are supernatural. And to be quite honest, the way nature and supernature are defined by different people seems very arbitrary to me. When you boil natural down to something being observable, and usually something repeated, etc., there are always other instances that can be brought up that are excepted from the criteria, such as the big bang that was neither observed nor repeated, and even if everything were, why does "observe and repeat" deserve such special regard to what is natural? Seeing two things connected physically does not connect them philosophically. And since I can see no philosophical necessity behind anything observed in nature, we cannot say that it really is a necessity, and cannot say why it couldn't have been otherwise. And since we cannot say why something couldn't have been otherwise, we cannot say that it cannot be altered or, on occasion, changed. We cannot say that it is an impossibility with anything supernatural, because we cannot say what is possible with regard to our "rule of nature", because we cannot see the rule behind what we call natural. We cannot say that the natural world is objectively true because it repeats, for we cannot get behind the curtain and discern what makes it really objective, nor what makes it repeat. Repetition doesn't provide a real rule discerned with our reason, only a rule of thumb discerned by observation. The universe is a place that we discovered, not that we invented.Clive Hayden_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Disputing macroevolution is like disputing the orbit of Pluto because no one has seen a complete revolution. Well, no. We can reasonably predict where Pluto is going to be on its orbit, 10, 20, 50 or 200 years from now. Can we using the theory of macroevolution predict what life will be like 10, 20, 50 or 200 years from now? We can, however, -- another example of your wonderful sense of irony -- predict that "since macroevolution doesn't happen life will not be significantly different 10, 20, 50 or 200 years from now" :-) BTW, I will return to your earlier point that the number of undisputed supernatural phenomena and events is approximately zero and note that you are incorrect. The creation of the energy/matter would be an undisputed supernatural event since its creation indisputably violates natural law.tribune7_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac (#74): If you allow it, I would like to try to give answers to your explicit questions: 1) If there were a gene which contained 1,200 bits of Functional Specified Complex Information, and a random mutation caused a gene duplication, would that mutation have added more than 1,000 bits of FSCI to the genome No. 2) Why or why not? One way to say it is that the Kolmogorov complexity of the string has not increased (if not for the bits necessary to codify: repeat this sequence twice). A simpler way to put it is that the duplication is not necessary to achieve a new specific function. If it was a protein coding gene, the information for the protein is already in the original gene, the duplication does not add anything. FSCI measures the complexity of the infromation necessary to achieve a function. 3) Additionally, if the gene were to be duplicated 1200 times, and random mutations changed at least 1 bit of FCSI in each gene (however many codons that would amount to) would those mutations have added more thatn 1,000 bits of FCSI information to the genome? This is a little bit obscure. Let's see. If you duplicate the same gene 1200 times, the CSI implied does not change, as already said. A single mutation in a single gene can have various effects: it can be neutral (function remains the same, CSI remains the same); it can impair the function. In that case, the protein may remain however functional enough according to the conventional threshold which has been established for that context, or not. In the first case, FSCI has not changed (the protein has moved inside the island of that functionality). In the second case, it has left the island, but because of the history of the events, it is still very near to it. Potentially, a single mutation can reintegrate the previous FSCI. Moreover, I have said many times that the concept of FSCI should be preferably applied to single well defined objects, such as one protein or one protein domain, with one well defined function, rather than to a complex system: the computation of FSCI for a complex functions creates many difficulties (defining a fucntion for the whole system, considering all the possible interactions of the various parts of the system, etc.) Computing the FSCI for a whole genome is certainly, at present, an impossible task. So, I cannot say how the FSCI of a whole genome would change in your bizarre scenario, and frankly I don't see why that would be interesting to know. 4) Why or why not? See above. 5) If you have a room with two dogs, does that room contain twice as much FCSI than that same room would have if it contained only one dog? The answer is the same as for the duplicate gene. If two dogs are identical, assuming they represent a functional system (which probably they don't), the FSCI of the system us practically the same of a single dog, plus the few bits to codify: take the dog twice. And I believe the room has nothing to do with all that. 6) If you have a room with a dog and a cat, does that room contain roughly twice as much FCSI than that same room if it contained only one of the two? See what I said about computing the FSCI of a whole genome. Anyway, in a purely specualative context, if the dog and the cat could be considered a single functional system, with one well defined function, the FSCI inherent in that system would be at least the sum of the FSCI of each original object in the system which is necessary for that function (for instance, of all the different genes which are necessary for that), plus the quote, extremely difficult to treat mathematically, inherent in the complexity of all the possible interactions between those parts, and all the higher levels of organization in the system. But I have a question for you: why are you so interested in those bizarre scenarios, when the nature of the FSCI concept is much more clear and useful and manageable in the much simpler case of a single protein? And when almost every single protein exhibits FSCI?gpuccio_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
But this sense cannot be absolute, the person cannot be nothing more than particle movements resulting from physical laws. You should maybe read the same essay I directed towards MathGrrl by C. S. Lewis called “The Empty Universe“.
Of course it's not absolute; that's why it's prefaced with the phrase "So, in this sense." In some contexts, when I say "naturally occurring", I do mean "absent intelligent input," while in others, I use natural to mean "not supernatural". Context is key. If you're implying that consciousness itself is supernatural, and therefore anything consciousness causes is supernatural, then almost everything in our daily experience - computers, cars, roads, coke bottles - is supernatural, rendering the term meaningless. I will read that article when I have a free moment, Lewis is one of my favorite authors and perhaps one of the best apologetic minds of the 20th century.jurassicmac_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
I thought Pluto wasn’t a planet any longer.
What word you apply to an object doesn't affect its ability to orbit the sun; but besides thoroughly missing the point, the saddest thing about your comment is that Petrushka didn't even refer to Pluto as a planet.jurassicmac_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

jurassicmac,
So in this sense Clive, humans, raccoons, robots and other verifiable intelligent agents certainly are in the same set as wind, rain, and corrosion, when dividing things between Natural(blind laws, physical intelligent beings) and the Supernatural(non-physical or non-verifiable intelligent beings).
But this sense cannot be absolute, the person cannot be nothing more than particle movements resulting from physical laws. You should maybe read the same essay I directed towards MathGrrl by C. S. Lewis called "The Empty Universe".Clive Hayden_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Petrushka,
Disputing macroevolution is like disputing the orbit of Pluto because no one has seen a complete revolution.
I thought Pluto wasn't a planet any longer.Clive Hayden_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

As an unrelated note, I must commend the editors of UD for removing the links to Cornelius Hunter's latest series of articles, the third of which is currently titled "The Gene Myth." The premise and arguments of the articles were ridiculous, and far inferior to his other articles. The arguments, even if true, were completely irrelevant to the evolution debate, and reflected badly on ID. I'm glad this was recognized and remedied.jurassicmac_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
Is your answer that you cannot give me an example of a real-word, supernatural thing that science cannot investigate?
This is a tricky question, because there doesn't seem to precise, universally accepted definition of the word 'miracle', so the best I can do is answer according to my definition. I would say that a miracle is an event that cannot, even in principal, be explained via natural causes. If I were to be diagnosed with cancer, then pray for healing, then find that the cancer was gone at the next visit to the doctor, and upon further investigation, find that the cancer disappeared because I contracted a harmless but extremely rare virus that as a side effect creates an extremely rare antibody to fight the cancer, then this would not, by definition, be a miracle. It could, of course, still be the will of God and the answer to the prayer, but because natural mechanisms are sufficient to explain the event, it is neither a 'miracle', nor 'supernatural'. (but it seems as though God often allows his will to be carried out by long chains of cause and effect.) So 'miracle' or 'supernatural' doesn't mean 'extremely unlikely' because things that are 'extremely unlikely' happen all day long. As another example, take something like astral projection or telepathy. Currently, these two abilities would be considered by most to be 'supernatural' abilities. But it would also be agreed upon by most that these abilities haven't been convincingly demonstrated to actually exist, because they never yield consistent, scientifically repeatable results. If however, a series of scientifically rigorous experiments detected a previously unknown phenomena of 'transmittable brainwaves' that would allow someone with an abnormal development in the prefrontal cortex to detect the thoughts of others via these electromagnetic waves, then the process would no longer be considered 'supernatural' but 'natural', because it can now be explained, in principle, by scientific investigative methods. In the same manner, it was once thought that communicable disease had a supernatural causal component; but now that we know about microorganisms, natural processes are sufficient to explain those diseases. Now, to your question: No, I cannot give you an example of a real-world, supernatural thing that science cannot investigate, because I cannot give you a concrete example of a real-world, supernatural thing. I'm not saying that miracles don't occur, just that I've never personally run across across something that couldn't possibly explained by natural processes, at least in principle. So that only leaves me with accounts of miracles. The problem with accounts of miracles, is that the account could be at worst inaccurate, or at best lacking in sufficient details to determine causality. And it doesn't really even matter how well documented the event is. An example comes to mind of an event in 1917, in which 70,000 pilgrims in Portugal saw the sun 'tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude.' Now, it is extremely unlikely that 70,000 people could have a shared hallucination like that. But it is many, many, many times more unlikely that they actually saw the sun move from it's place in the solar system. (our solar system is still here, by the way, and it doesn't seem like the event was witnessed outside of this particular area) So even in the case of an event like the sun displacing itself and coming down to the surface of the earth without leaving a lasting effect, which would 'clearly' be a miracle in any sense of the word, we would probably be correct to say that is likely that there is a better, more plausible, 'natural' explanation for it. So to sum up, if an effect actually were supernatural in origin, science would not be able, even in principle, to explain it, but that wouldn't stop anyone from trying. I hope I've answered your questions to satisfaction, and I would be happy to elaborate on any points that aren't clear. I do feel that there are a few questions of mine that you've yet to answer, though I believe because I worded them poorly. I'll rephrase: 1. If there were a gene which contained 1,200 bits of Functional Specified Complex Information, and a random mutation caused a gene duplication, would that mutation have added more than 1,000 bits of FSCI to the genome? 2. Why or why not? 3. Additionally, if the gene were to be duplicated 1200 times, and random mutations changed at least 1 bit of FCSI in each gene (however many codons that would amount to) would those mutations have added more thatn 1,000 bits of FCSI information to the genome? 4. Why or why not? You clearly refer to FCSI as quantifiable, so I have two additional questions: 5. If you have a room with two dogs, does that room contain twice as much FCSI than that same room would have if it contained only one dog? 6. If you have a room with a dog and a cat, does that room contain roughly twice as much FCSI than that same room if it contained only one of the two? Thanks in advance for the response.jurassicmac_{August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

WJM -- If one cannot even provide a real-world example of a thing, how can anyone say science cannot investigate that thing, much less explain why? Well, we can't provide a real-world example of a macro-evolutionary event. How can anyone say science cannot investigate that thing much less explain why?tribune7_{August 22, 2010
August
08
Aug
22
22
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

WJM, I may not be clear enough: I am saying you are right as rain. Gkairosfocus_{August 22, 2010
August
08
Aug
22
22
2010
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

A brief note:
f one cannot even provide a real-world example of a thing [the supernatural/ miraculous], how can anyone say science cannot investigate that thing, much less explain why?
What are you talking about, mon? Maybe, you are not familiar with the many, many miracles doctors have routinely seen, across the years? Back in 1983, the British Medical Journal actually published an article by Rex Gardner on Bedan cases and parallels in modern records, many in a specifically medical context. Some4 have scoffed at it but I actually went to my Uni's Med library and got a copy of the article. More directly and personally, I personally knew Shelly B, a Jamaica Scholar, ace med student, daughter of a bishop and all around lovely young lady, who in the mid 80's was seen to have ovarian cysts with Bad C being raised. After prayer, they vanished, and he clinical records are there on the case, at the university hospital. The supernatural is eminently capable of being investigated scientifically, once it cuts across such matters. And, scientific investigations are not the sole guardian or begetter of what is credibly true; time to surrender an absurd prejudice. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with 500+ witnesses is a subject of history and it can be quite reasonably warranted. (BTW, science depends on credible accurate records, and so cannot be severed from history and its methods, just another stanza on the song sung by Feyerabend et al.) The transformation of millions of lives through living encounter with God in the face of the risen Christ is a subject of serious empirical investigation. And more. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 22, 2010
August
08
Aug
22
22
2010
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

The point to my question leads to this second question: If one cannot even provide a real-world example of a thing, how can anyone say science cannot investigate that thing, much less explain why? The is why inserting the canard "science cannot investigate the supernatural" is a red herring, consciously or unwittingly used to avoid the actual arguments being made.William J. Murray_{August 22, 2010
August
08
Aug
22
22
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

GP, IOW, it would the same number as disputed macro-evolutionary events as well :-) And a good point, btw.tribune7_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

tribune7: To be sincere, I am not even aware of the existence of disputed macroevolutionary events. I am not aware of the existence of macroevolutionary events at all (I mean, obviously, macroevolutionary events for which darwinists have proposed an explanation according to their same theory). How can one dispute what has never been proposed?gpuccio_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Might I point out that even Ken Ham doesn't dispute macro-evolution up to the level of biological family. His position will be mainstream just as soon as he realize the the progenitors of current families also had families.Petrushka_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

I don’t know if you mean to be ironic but that is the same number as undisputed macro-evolutionary events.
Disputing macroevolution is like disputing the orbit of Pluto because no one has seen a complete revolution.Petrushka_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Petrushka -- I think it’s fairly obvious that the number of undisputed supernatural phenomena and events is approximately zero. I don't know if you mean to be ironic but that is the same number as undisputed macro-evolutionary events.tribune7_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Petrushka you ask for a 'undisputed supernatural event'.,,,, though you are sure to 'dispute' this, none-the-less,, For evidence of the supernatural I submit your very own posts you are writing. Every time you write a single page of a letter (700 functional information bits (Fits) average; Durston) you are in fact generating more functional information than is possible for the entire natural processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe. Thus since it is beyond the natural material processes of this universe to account for the origination of the novel functional information coming from your very own hand then there must be, of necessity, a supernatural component to you that is in fact not limited to the natural material processes of this universe. reference: Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.htmlbornagain77_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
I think it’s fairly obvious that the number of undisputed supernatural phenomena and events is approximately zero. By undisputed, I mean that people of all religions and non-religions would agree as to their existence.
Everything has been disputed, logic, existence itself, reason, numbers, life, death, you name it. The number of undisputed anything-at-all is approximately zero.Clive Hayden_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
This goes back a few posts, but someone asked for a reason why science doesn’t investigate supernatural phenomena.
Oh I see. what's your personal take on it?
I think it’s fairly obvious that the number of undisputed supernatural phenomena and events is approximately zero. By undisputed, I mean that people of all religions and non-religions would agree as to their existence.
This seems opaque to my reasoning, can you restate it?Clive Hayden_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

You asked for examples of the supernatural, so I gave them. Did you want different examples for some reason?
This goes back a few posts, but someone asked for a reason why science doesn't investigate supernatural phenomena. I think it's fairly obvious that the number of undisputed supernatural phenomena and events is approximately zero. By undisputed, I mean that people of all religions and non-religions would agree as to their existence.Petrushka_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
You believe the witnesses or you don’t. There’s nothing to investigate. I understand there have been lots of attempts to find historical evidence for some of them, but basically you believe or not.
You asked for examples of the supernatural, so I gave them. Did you want different examples for some reason?Clive Hayden_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

errata corrige: "OOL os OOLO" should obviously be: "OOL is OOL", and not that strange crypted sequence which came out of random variation...gpuccio_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply