Intelligent Design

The Demise of Science

Spread the love

I’m reading Jim Baggott’s book, Farewell to Reality, which criticizes the direction that modern science is now taking. He wants to demonstrate what “real” science should look like, and what is instead catching the attention of modern physicists. I wrote about this sort of stuff over two years ago, at about the same time as Baggott’s book was coming out, but coming from a physicist himself, it is better said in his words.

He writes:

In 2003, theorists Shamir Kachru, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde and Sandip Trivedi worked out the number of different Calabi-Yau shapes that are theoretically possible. This number is determined by the number of ‘holes’ each shape can possess, up to a theoretical maximum of about five hundred. There are ten different possible configurations for each hole. This gives a maximum of 10^500 different possible Calabi-Yau shapes.

The precise shape of the Calbi-Yau manifold determines the nature of the superstring vibrations that are possible. It thus determines the physical constants, the laws of physics and the spectrum of particles that will prevail. In other words, the shape determines the type of universe that will result. The figure 10^500 therefore refers to the number of different possible types of universe, not the total number of possible universes. This is what Guth meant when he talked about string theory having no preferred vacuum.

I believe there was a time in the history of physics when this kind of result would have been taken as evidence that a theoretical programme had failed. We could conclude that 10^500 different possible Calabi-Yau shapes with no compelling physical reason to select the one shape that particles that completely describes our universe—and hence describes the laws and the particles we actually observe—leave us with nowhere to go. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Except, of course, we now have eternal inflation and the inflationary multiverse.

Far from this vast multiplicity of possible Calabi-Yau shapes being seen as evidence for the failure of the superstring programme, it is instead used to bolster the idea that what the theory is describing is actually a multiverse.(p.225)

Doesn’t this sound familiar? Dembski’ UPB was 2^500, not 10^500, and this doesn’t slow down our modern-day theoretical physicists one bit. This isn’t a case of mathematically ‘unsophisticated’ evolutionary biologists making this error in scientific logic, but esteemed, perhaps the most esteemed, mathematically sophisticated scientists of them all. This is a problem of modern-day science, not of ill-prepared scientists.

To further make the point:

Eternal inflation is a characteristic of certain cosmological models. These models describe a multiverse consisting of bubbles of inflating spacetime triggered by quantum fluctuations in a vast inflaton field. We assume our universe is a relatively unexceptional bubble in this multiverse. We further assume that each of these universes can be characterized by one of the 10^500 different possible ways of compactifying the six extra spatial dimensions [via Calabi-Yau manifolds] demanded by superstring theory. In an alternative scenario, the hot big bang origin of our own universe could be the result of a collision between two braneworlds. There is no experimental or observational evidence for any of these assumptions.

Let’s just check to see if we’ve understood this correctly. We live in a multiverse, ‘surrounded’ by parallel universes that by definition we cannot experience directly. We can never verify the existence of these universes and must look instead for evidence that betrays their existence indirectly in the physics of our own universe.

Of course, there is no evidence in the physics of the authorized version of reality, so we must look to the physics of superstrings or M-theory. And look! The fact that there is no preferred choice of Calabi-Yau shape from the 10^500 different possibilities is taken to imply that our universe is far from unique. There must be many, many other kinds of universe. Quod erat demonstrandum. [p.229-230]

So, we have the familiar “tautology” encrusted within the Darwinian shibboleth “survival of the fittest,” but here now in “superstring” form. Instead of concluding–as rational human beings should—that there are vastly too many possibilities in the space of all shapes of Calabi-Yau manifolds for it to be the ground of reality, they turn it around and use it as proof that there is an ‘infinite number of infinite universes.’ Or, in its Darwinian form, despite the astronomical calculable improbability of the protein, cytochrome c, coming about by random natural forces, evolutionists tell us: “But life exists, so natural forces are sufficient to explain its existence,” and, so, avoiding reaching the logical conclusion that something so improbable could not have mere chance as its originator.

We’re witnessing the demise of science itself. All the logical underpinnings of science are being kicked-out from underneath it (Occham’s Razor has splintered). And why? I would say it is because of ‘atheism.’ Stephen Hawkings, who, for most of his adult life was not an atheist, now claims he is. Why? Because he’s bought into the “multiverse” way of thinking.

It’s ironic that it was within the Catholic/Christian religion that science arose and was fostered. It developed via a strict application of logic to empirical facts. The idea of “inertia” developed within religious circles saw the first movements toward what we consider modern science (confer Stanley Jaki’s The Savior of Science. And, as a real head-turner, we now know that Galileo’s views were rejected by the Catholic Church not because they contradicted the Book of Geneis, but because they contradicted the prevailing wisdom of the day–that’s right, the “scientific consensus” of the day). History will show that it was ‘religious thought’ that purified the mind and led to the rise of science and, consequently, modernity; while it was ‘atheism’ that led to its ruin.

We’ve reached the point in history where it is clear that any sensible “physics” must first be grounded in a sensible “metaphysics.” A “brave new world” awaits.

31 Replies to “The Demise of Science

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Science, in its earlier forms, flourished variously in China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and under Islam before it was taken up by Christianity. There, For as long as it promised to reveal the hidden glories of God’s creation, it was nurtured and encouraged. The trouble started when, like a rebellious teenager, it began asking awkward questions and providing some answers that were not at all to the liking of its erstwhile sponsors.

    I should be very wary of all those who claim to know what “real” science is for down that road lies Lysenkoism – or should we update that to baggottry. Karl Popper urged scientists urged scientists to be bold in their conjectures. Perhaps string theory is too bold a conjecture and a diversion of valuable resources. Perhaps it is taking us in the right direction. There’s only one way to find out.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, to repeat what I said yesterday, I am rather comfortable with what modern science has revealed in regards to ‘the hidden glories of God’s creation’

    let’s take an overview of what our science has discovered and what classical Theism predicted.

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin – (video)
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Sure someone may argue over the details, (as atheists are wont to do), but as far as the overview of modern science is concerned, the evidence is a slam dunk for Theism~!

  3. 3
    keith s says:

    PaV:

    Doesn’t this sound familiar? Dembski’ UPB was 2^500, not 10^500, and this doesn’t slow down our modern-day theoretical physicists one bit.

    That statement makes no sense to me. What does the number of Calabi-Yau shapes have to do with Dembski’s UPB?

  4. 4
    anthropic says:

    Seversky 1

    Nope, science did not flourish anywhere other than Christian Europe. That’s because Christendom, as it was called, had a unique worldview of a rational, law giving God creating a rational, law following universe inhabited by rational creatures made to understand it.

  5. 5
    Joe says:

    anthropic- Back then the Christians were way behind the rest of the world wrt science. Islam was ahead of Christendom.

    However with the advent of materialism and evolutionism, science has slid down to the level of propaganda.

  6. 6
    Edward says:

    Keith S @3

    Both are highly improbable? I don’t know for sure.

    HTH,
    Ed

  7. 7
    PaV says:

    keith s:

    Dembski’s UPB says that if something is that improbable, then it has essentially zero chance of happening. (You can consult his writings for more info) Part of Dembski’s reasoning is that there are only something like 10^80 particles in the entire universe.

    Now, switching to Calabi-Yau manifolds, there are an estimated 10^500 “types” of such manifolds, for which each ‘type’ can give rise to in almost infinite number of universes.

    So, just think: there are 10^80 PARTICLES in our universe, and we have scientists who, without blinking, propose that there are–as a minimum–10^500 universes out there somewhere.

    The inverse of zero is infinity (roughly), and vice versa. The inverse of Occham’s Razor is the “multiverse” postulate. It is like dividing logical scientific thought by infinity. It ‘zeroes’ out. Zip. Nada.

    Hence, ‘the demise of science.’

    HTH

  8. 8
    PaV says:

    Severesky:

    Science, in its earlier forms, flourished variously in China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and under Islam before it was taken up by Christianity.

    I imagine your point in making this statement is relativize the significance of the rise of science within Christiandom.
    Yet—I guess you don’t see it—it only serves to underline its significance.

    Yes, other ‘religions’ had their scientific program. But it was only in the Christian world where people were allowed to go in whatever directions they wanted, and where the “rational” basis of nature was taken as a starting point. Nature was considered to be another way of God revealing Himself to us—a kind of almost separate “Scripture,” if you will. And since Jesus was the “logos”—(Have you seen ‘logos’ somewhere? Yes, that’s right, at the end of most sciences) through Whom the all things in the Cosmos was created, then it was expected that there would be, as I said before, some rational basis for what is found in the created order.

    Let me put it another way: Just as Jesus is one of the Three Persons in God, and just as He lived among us, uniting the divine with the natural, so, too, part of the divine could be found, should be found, in the natural order of things. This gave an impetus to science in the West that no other ‘religion’/culture had before.

    If you’re smirking over my comment about scientists being allowed to go in whatever direction they cared to, you then need to inform yourself of what really happened to Galileo. The “myth,” of which all of liberal thought bases itself, is that Galileo contradicted the Bible, and so was muzzled. Instead, the Church relying on the “scientific consensus” of the day—-which, of course, was Ptolemaic—told Galileo not to publish his stuff.

    And, of course, the Church at the time of Galileo, only had influence in southern Europe. The north was free to do what they wanted. And they did.

    History shows that it took over 100 years for Galileo’s ideas to win over those who held onto the Ptolemaic view.

  9. 9
    keith s says:

    PaV,

    The number of Calabi-Yau shapes has nothing to do with the probability that string theory is correct.

    If there turned out to be 10^501 Calabi-Yau shapes instead of 10^500, would it make sense to argue that string theory was 10 times less probable? Of course not.

  10. 10
    PaV says:

    keith s:

    I interpret your comment to mean that Dembski’s method is not a valid one, and that using 501 instead of 500 makes this clear.

    Let me remind you of this comment of Baggot:

    I believe there was a time in the history of physics when this kind of result would have been taken as evidence that a theoretical programme had failed. We could conclude that 10^500 different possible Calabi-Yau shapes with no compelling physical reason to select the one shape that particles that completely describes our universe—and hence describes the laws and the particles we actually observe—leave us with nowhere to go.

    This can just as easily be said of Darwinism. The “theoretical program” has “failed.”

    But not a problem for Darwinists. Just ignore it.

    500 instances of voter fraud are discovered. No problem. Just deny that voter fraud takes place. It’s really easy.

    Disconnected from truth and reality as it is, the liberal mind simply denies facts it finds uncomfortable. You know—they stick their heads in the sand like ostriches.

    (Anyone old enough to remember how this accusation was made against conservative/Republicans back in the 60’s? Even back then, they were simply describing themselves.)

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    BA77 @ 2

    Seversky, to repeat what I said yesterday, I am rather comfortable with what modern science has revealed in regards to ‘the hidden glories of God’s creation’

    I’m glad. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    let’s take an overview of what our science has discovered and what classical Theism predicted.

    By classical, I assume you mean Biblical?

    Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed.

    Naturalism/Materialism (N/M) is the view that everything can be explained in terms of matter and energy and the nature thereof. It doesn’t entail any one particular explanation, there are many possible N/M explanations

    Both the “steady state” and Big Bang theories were Naturalistic/Materialistic models. There was no reason on N/M grounds to favor one over the other.

    Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created.

    Yes, Christian theology includes a creation story. So do a lot of other thesitic and non-theistic religions. It’s hardly unique in that respect. What reasons can you offer for prefering the Christian version over all the others?

    Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    Yes, a prediction of an N/M theory. It doesn’t say “God did it” What caused it and what, if anything, preceded it is still unknown.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence.

    That’s one possibility. We have no reason to think there is a being out there holding it all together. We could just as easily – and with as much justification – assume it is some Matrix-like simulation.

    Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    Extrapolating from non-local phenomena to God is more what you’d call a leap of faith. It’s not really sound science.

    Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality.

    To be conscious or aware is to be conscious or aware of something even if only oneself. If there is nothing to be conscious of how do you know you are conscious?. Also, assuming there are conscious beings out there apart from myself, their consciousnesses will differ from mine in many ways. Yet we all appear to be conscious of the pretty much the same things. If I see a blue car and you are standing beside me, the chances are that you will see a blue car. But if reality is determined by the observer, why wouldn’t you see a red van instead of a blue car?

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9)

    That’s right and need I remind you that Relativity is an N/M theory.

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind.

    That’s the belief but on the evidence He didn’t doa very good job. See below

    Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).

    The argument was that, if the values of certain constants had varied by even a small amount, our universe could not exist. This doesn’t mean it was necessarily fine-tuned for us. See puddle analogy

    In fact, if you look around us, it doesn’t look very rosy at all. Life on Earth exists on, or just under the surface of, a small rocky planet within a thin film of atmosphere. Even inside that cozy little habitat there are all manner of things that can harm or kill the life. Look outside, however, and you will see a Universe, the vast majority of which is seriously hostile to life like ours with no air, deadly radiation, supernovae, black holes and so on. I’d hardly call that fine-tuned for our benefit.

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common.

    Just a matter of time. We’re finding lots of estra-solar planets now.

    Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe.

    Okay, I’ll grant you there’s probably only one Earth in this particular Universe.

    Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez).

    Finding evidence of life on Mars or Europa or Titan or Ganymede will knock that little conceit on the head.

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11).

    Life on earth appeared after liquid water was available. That gives N/M hundreds of millions of years to work with. There’s no evidence to suggest it took just a day or so.

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

    You’re so parochial. Humanity’s’s “concerted effort” in this respect has been how long – 150-200 years maybe out of around 13.7 billion for the Universe itself? Come back in a thousand or a million years and, assuming we’re still around, see how far we’ve got.

    As for the simplest life ever found, you must mean fossils. Has it occured to you that maybe the much simpler life forms were made of soft tissue that never fossilized so we are unlikely to ever find any evidence of them?

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record.

    Yup, and that’s what we see

    Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

    Only geologists or paleontologists could think of an event that took around a hundred million years as being in any way explosive. It certainly wasn’t no six days.

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record.

    There are plenty of transitional fossils.

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”.

    ENCODE is thougt to have somewhat overstated its case. There’s still thought to be plenty of genetic debris in there.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford)

    Our knowledge of genetics is based firmly in N/M theory. The evidence, from N/M research, is that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly-neutral, a smaller number are harmful and a smaller number still are beneficial. As I recall God and the Bible don’t have much to say on the matter.

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory.

    Not exactly. They’re best viewed as cultural constructs that promote social cohesion.

    Theism predicted morality is objective and real.

    “Objective and real” in what sense? If we go out and dig around a bit, will we unearth the fossilized moral codes of ancient civilizations down in the rocks somewhere?

    Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans.

    So you think there’s a gene for morality buried in amongst all that junk in our genome?

    As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe.

    Ah, so you do think we’ll find fossil morals if we dig deep enough.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die.

    I’m still not seeing any evidence of life after death or immaterial life.

    Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies.

    How’s the search for evidence of life after death working out for you, then?

    Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

    QM is an N/M theory. It describes the behavior of matter and energy at an incredibly small scale. Yes, there are phenomena there that are just plain weird by our everyday standards and very difficult to explain but it’s still a leap of faith jumping from them to God.

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

    Only in Jack Chick dreams.

  12. 12
    humbled says:

    Seversky, so much wrong in your post above. You clearly haven’t been at this very long have you? Your attempt to explain away the fine tuning argument was hilarious. All of that danger out there and yet we managed to somehow defy all odds and survive huh? Wow.

    Also, go to Sunday school and ask someone in the know about “the fall”. The fine tuning argument, along with death, evil, pain and suffering, from a classical theism point of view, makes perfect sense.

  13. 13
    Rich says:

    Fine tuned for what exactly… vacuum?

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    PaV @ 8

    If you’re smirking over my comment about scientists being allowed to go in whatever direction they cared to, you then need to inform yourself of what really happened to Galileo. The “myth,” of which all of liberal thought bases itself, is that Galileo contradicted the Bible, and so was muzzled. Instead, the Church relying on the “scientific consensus” of the day—-which, of course, was Ptolemaic—told Galileo not to publish his stuff.

    They could go in whatever direction they cared to so long as their theories could be reconciled with the teachings of the Church, otherwise they ran the risk of being declared heretical.

    In Galileo’s case, there were both geocentric and heliocentric models on the table with the consensus being that the evidence available at the time favored the former. Galileo was punished not for promoting a heliocentric hypothesis but for insisting it was a fact rather than just one amongst several possible explanations. He’d been given friendly warnings not to push it too hard but ignored them. If he’d kept his head down and been patient there’s a good chance the Church would eventually have come around to his way of thinking but he got over-confident or just plain stubborn and we know where that got him.

  15. 15
    JWTruthInLove says:

    It is fine-tuned for life surrounded by a vacuum. And also for your farts.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    you state,,,

    Naturalism/Materialism (N/M) is the view that everything can be explained in terms of matter and energy and the nature thereof. It doesn’t entail any one particular explanation, there are many possible N/M explanations
    Both the “steady state” and Big Bang theories were Naturalistic/Materialistic models. There was no reason on N/M grounds to favor one over the other.
    and
    Yes, Christian theology includes a creation story. So do a lot of other thesitic and non-theistic religions. It’s hardly unique in that respect. What reasons can you offer for prefering the Christian version over all the others?

    Contrary to what you believe, Fred Hoyle’s Steady State Theory was developed directly in backlash to the growing evidence for a Big Bang, (in fact Hoyle first used the term ‘Big Bang’ as a derogatory term to express his disdain for a creation event. Hardly a philosophically neutral position) (of note Hoyle later became a Deist or maybe even a Theist).
    Moreover, Einstein’s greatest blunder is where he, philosophically not scientifically, added a constant to his General Relativity equation to reflect his naturalistic belief that the universe has always existed.
    Eddington philosophically wished that he ‘should like to find a genuine loophole’ to the ‘repugnant notion’ of a creation of the universe.
    All these philosophical reactions to the evidence for the Big Bang were derived solely from the naturalistic/materialistic philosophy of believing the universe has always existed.
    Even the atheist Carl Sagan reflected this naturalistic belief that the universe has always existed, years after the Big Bang was accepted science:

    ‘The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.’
    Carl Sagan

    To this day atheists fight tooth and nail against a beginning for the universe. This is reflected in Dr. Craig’s repeated defense of the Kalam cosmological argument against atheists who refuse to accept that the universe has/had a transcendent origin!

    Moreover, contrary to what you believe, only the Bible was correct in its prediction for a absolute beginning to the universe.

    “among all the ‘holy’ books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact.” (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

    The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among ‘holy books’ and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y

    The Most Important Verse in the Bible – Prager University – video
    http://www.prageruniversity.co.....Bible.html

    The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0

    For you to try to co-opt the creation of the universe as a Naturalistic ‘prediction’ is nothing less than sheer intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree!

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    you state,,,,

    That’s one possibility. We have no reason to think there is a being out there holding it all together. We could just as easily – and with as much justification – assume it is some Matrix-like simulation.
    and
    Extrapolating from non-local phenomena to God is more what you’d call a leap of faith. It’s not really sound science.
    and
    To be conscious or aware is to be conscious or aware of something even if only oneself. If there is nothing to be conscious of how do you know you are conscious?. Also, assuming there are conscious beings out there apart from myself, their consciousnesses will differ from mine in many ways. Yet we all appear to be conscious of the pretty much the same things. If I see a blue car and you are standing beside me, the chances are that you will see a blue car. But if reality is determined by the observer, why wouldn’t you see a red van instead of a blue car?

    Appealing to Matrix type computer simulations is certainly a sign of desparation, but anyways,,,

    Digital Physics Argument for God’s Existence – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

    Digital Physics Argument
    Premise 1: Simulations can only exist is a computer or a mind.
    Premise 2: The universe is a simulation.
    Premise 3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind.
    Premise 4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3).
    Premise 5: This mind is what we call God.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

    Moreover, It is not a ‘leap of faith’ to believe God upholds the universe since Theism predicted God ‘sustains the universe all along,,

    Hebrews 1:3
    The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.,,,

    ,,,but it is an absolutely garguantuan ‘leap of faith’ for a Atheists to believe some beyond space and time self-programming computer simulates the universe,,,
    Moreover, materialism has extremely difficult time explaining the ‘form’ of the universe. For instance, the cosmic background radiation forms an almost perfect sphere around the earth,,,

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in the universe at the 3:36 minute mark in the video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

    Planck’s view of the Universe (layers of filtering) – Oct. 18, 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn0FgOwyu0w

    Yet, inflation, which is a naturalistic theory, is in its death throes of trying to explain how such spherical symmetry can arise,,,

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace
    Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    But, Theism had predicted the cosmic background radiation sphere all along,,,

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    You skipped it, but anyways,,,

    A Short History Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    you state,,,,

    That’s right and need I remind you that Relativity is an N/M theory.

    Actually, General Relativity is based on higher dimensional math that was developed by a devout Christian named Bernhard Riemann.,,,

    The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video
    https://vimeo.com/98188985

    Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video
    Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

    And math is hardly friendly to Naturalistic concerns,,,

    Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg

    1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: : ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here,,,,
    We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    you state,,,,

    That’s the belief but on the evidence He didn’t do a very good job. See below
    and
    The argument was that, if the values of certain constants had varied by even a small amount, our universe could not exist. This doesn’t mean it was necessarily fine-tuned for us. See puddle analogy
    In fact, if you look around us, it doesn’t look very rosy at all. Life on Earth exists on, or just under the surface of, a small rocky planet within a thin film of atmosphere. Even inside that cozy little habitat there are all manner of things that can harm or kill the life. Look outside, however, and you will see a Universe, the vast majority of which is seriously hostile to life like ours with no air, deadly radiation, supernovae, black holes and so on. I’d hardly call that fine-tuned for our benefit.

    Actually, the universe does appear to be ‘designed for us’,,,
    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves.,,,
    For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    Privileged Species – How the cosmos is designed for human life – website
    http://privilegedspecies.com/

    Dr. Michael Denton Interview
    Excerpt Question 14: 14. Q: ,,,you also detail that nature isn’t fine-tuned for just any kind of life, but life specifically like human life. Would you expound on this for our readers?
    A: there are certain elements of the fine-tuning which are clearly for advanced being like ourselves.
    http://successfulstudent.org/d.....interview/

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near – optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated).
    In every case that I was able to make calculations regarding whether the fundamental parameters of physics are optimized in this way, they appear to pass the test.[iv] This alone is significant since this hypothesis is falsifiable in the sense that one could find data that potentially disconfirms it – namely, cases in which as best as we can determining, such as a case in which changing the value of a fundamental parameter – such as the fine – structure constant – increases discoverability while not negatively affecting livability.[v] Below, I will look at a case from cosmology where this thesis could have been disconfirmed but was not.,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Greer Heard Forum: Robin Collins – “God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Discovery” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWmMU7BXGE

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle.

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). –

    you state,,,,

    Just a matter of time. We’re finding lots of estra-solar planets now.
    and
    Okay, I’ll grant you there’s probably only one Earth in this particular Universe.
    and
    Finding evidence of life on Mars or Europa or Titan or Ganymede will knock that little conceit on the head.

    That is called promissory materialism, but anyways,,,

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. equals 10^324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. equals 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. equals 10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    you state,,,,

    Life on earth appeared after liquid water was available. That gives N/M hundreds of millions of years to work with. There’s no evidence to suggest it took just a day or so.

    Actually, naturalists don’t have ‘hundreds of millions of years to work with’ anymore

    The Sudden Appearance Of Life On Earth (3.9 billion years ago) – video
    https://vimeo.com/92413648

    ,, moreover you have no evidence of prebiotic chemistry,,,

    Dr. Hugh Ross – Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video (40:10 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UPvO2EkiLls#t=2410

    “We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth’s oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant” (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth).
    – Hugh Ross – quote as stated in preceding video

    Isotopic Evidence For Life Immediately Following Late Bombardment – Graph
    http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/.....bitofc.jpg

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    you state,,,,

    You’re so parochial. Humanity’s’s “concerted effort” in this respect has been how long – 150-200 years maybe out of around 13.7 billion for the Universe itself? Come back in a thousand or a million years and, assuming we’re still around, see how far we’ve got.
    As for the simplest life ever found, you must mean fossils. Has it occured to you that maybe the much simpler life forms were made of soft tissue that never fossilized so we are unlikely to ever find any evidence of them?

    Actually, there is scant hope of us realistically modeling life, much less copying the complexity of it,,,

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover fossilized bacteria show extreme stasis,,,

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    you state,,,,

    Yup, and that’s what we see
    and
    Only geologists or paleontologists could think of an event that took around a hundred million years as being in any way explosive. It certainly wasn’t no six days.

    Actually the Cambrian Explosion, despite the denial of Darwinists, has always been and continues to be, a huge blow to Darwinian claims.

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

    Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 – 747 – July 2009
    Excerpt: “going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.” —“Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.”,,,
    serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple — as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.
    “Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ”a major mystery,” a ”challenge.” The Theory of Evolution — exploded again (idofcourse.com). ”
    Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume — if Victorian fashion dictated — that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....mater.html

    Moreover, no where in Genesis does it say that the days were 24 hours long, and in many instances a ‘day’ means extremely long periods of time

    Dr. Hugh Ross appeared on Fox News with Lauren Green to discuss Science and the Book of Genesis. (Long Days vs. 24 hour Days)
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/363...../#sp=show-

    also see Hugh Ross – “A Matter Of Days”

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    you state,,,,

    There are plenty of transitional fossils.

    Contrary to what you believe, the lack of transitional fossils is a primary defining characteristic of the fossil record.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    Moreover, the fossil record is ‘upside down’ compared to what Darwin predicted:

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    you skipped it, but anyways,,,

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    you state,,,,

    ENCODE is thougt to have somewhat overstated its case. There’s still thought to be plenty of genetic debris in there.

    Actually, if anything, they understated their case,,,

    Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds “Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome” – Casey Luskin – September 5, 2012
    Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well:
    “And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney. “We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.””
    We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let’s simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called “junk” DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like “surprising” or “unprecedented.” They talk about of how “human DNA is a lot more active than we expected.” But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64001.html

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    https://vimeo.com/106012299

    Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012
    Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins!
    While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25.
    Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance.
    http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8

    Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010
    Excerpt: “How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,” he said. “It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It’s akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour.” Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....123522.htm

    Of note: DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days. Since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster logistic problem, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for DNA repair, is somehow being computed by ‘non-local’ quantum computation within the cell and/or within DNA;

    Quantum Entanglement/Information in DNA – video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    you state,,,,

    Our knowledge of genetics is based firmly in N/M theory. The evidence, from N/M research, is that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly-neutral, a smaller number are harmful and a smaller number still are beneficial. As I recall God and the Bible don’t have much to say on the matter.

    Actually, Mendel, a monk, discovered genetics and he was hardly a naturalist. Moreover, as far as we can tell, mutations are almost always detrimental to one extent or other and there are also strong theoretical reasons for not believing that any mutations are completely neutral,,,

    Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
    Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....teria.html

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    “But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
    Lee Spetner – Ph.D. Physics – MIT – Not By Chance

    “Moreover, there is strong theoretical reasons for believing there is no truly neutral nucleotide positions. By its very existence, a nucleotide position takes up space, affects spacing between other sites, and affects such things as regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding, and nucleosome building. If a nucleotide carries absolutely no (useful) information, it is, by definition, slightly deleterious, as it slows cell replication and wastes energy.,, Therefore, there is no way to change any given site without some biological effect, no matter how subtle.”
    – John Sanford – Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome – pg. 21 – Inventor of the ‘Gene Gun’

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    you state,,,,

    Not exactly. They’re best viewed as cultural constructs that promote social cohesion.
    and
    “Objective and real” in what sense? If we go out and dig around a bit, will we unearth the fossilized moral codes of ancient civilizations down in the rocks somewhere?
    and
    So you think there’s a gene for morality buried in amongst all that junk in our genome?
    and
    Ah, so you do think we’ll find fossil morals if we dig deep enough.

    Actually,,,

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

    Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD
    Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
    http://www.quantumconsciousnes.....Flies.html

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.
    you state,,,,

    I’m still not seeing any evidence of life after death or immaterial life.
    and
    How’s the search for evidence of life after death working out for you, then?
    and
    QM is an N/M theory. It describes the behavior of matter and energy at an incredibly small scale. Yes, there are phenomena there that are just plain weird by our everyday standards and very difficult to explain but it’s still a leap of faith jumping from them to God.

    Actually the observational evidence for life after death is far stronger than the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution is,,,

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    Moreover, Finding conserved non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is certainly conducive to the concept of a soul:

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://vimeo.com/39982578

    Seversky in regards to,,,

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

    you state,,,,

    Only in Jack Chick dreams.

    Actually, the resurrection of Christ from the dead offers a very plausible, empirically backed, solution to the number one mystery in science today, namely, the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’!

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin – (video)
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

    Verse and Music:

    Matthew 10:28
    “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video)
    http://www.vevo.com/watch/evan.....tantsearch

  22. 22
    phoodoo says:

    I often wonder why evolutionists wouldn’t expect new life forms to be beginning all the time, if they are so ready to believe there is life on other planets.

    Isn’t Earth conducive to the start of life? Where is all this NEW life that should be sprouting up? Why did it happen only once?

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    Humbled @ 12

    All of that danger out there and yet we managed to somehow defy all odds and survive huh? Wow.

    So far. The dinosaurs were around for a lot longer than we have but they’re gone now. In fact, if they hadn’t been taken out by the Chicxulub impactor and maybe some other environmental disasters, we might not be here. Either we got very lucky or your God has a very roundabout way of looking after his favorites

    Also, go to Sunday school and ask someone in the know about “the fall”. The fine tuning argument, along with death, evil, pain and suffering, from a classical theism point of view, makes perfect sense.

    The Fall makes no sense at all if you’re assuming an omniscient deity. When God created Adam and Eve He knew exactly what He was doing and exactly what He was making. If they behaved badly, that is how He made them to behave and He would have known exactly what was going to happen. Remember, this is an omniscient being. He not only knows what is to us past and present, He knows what is our future in equal detail. So where is the justice in blaming Adam and Eve for behaving in the ways He designed them to behave and for doing things he knew they would do? Further, where is the justice in inflicting punishment on all their descendants when those descendants not only had no knowledge or responsibility for those actions but didn’t even exist at the time the alleged offenses were committed? The whole Fall thesis makes no sense at all.

  24. 24
    Seversky says:

    phoodoo @ 22

    I often wonder why evolutionists wouldn’t expect new life forms to be beginning all the time, if they are so ready to believe there is life on other planets.

    Isn’t Earth conducive to the start of life? Where is all this NEW life that should be sprouting up? Why did it happen only once?

    What sort of new life do you think we should be seeing?
    Two things to bear in mind. First, evolution doesn’t predict that large, complex creatures like elephants or dolphins are constantly popping into existence overnight. Second, new creatures finding themselves the first in some virgin ecological niche stand a good chance of flourishing because of lack of competition. Newbies appearing on today’s Earth are going to find themselves facing stiff competition right out of the gate.

    But if you want candidates for new life, you could start small. HIV and Ebola viruses look like fairly new kids on the block in evolutionary terms.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Trouble with your argument Seversky, besides the fact it is theological not scientific, is that you cannot see the entire picture as God can. Thus, while you whine and gripe that you do not like the world that God created, (all the while pretending you can create a universe better than He can 🙂 ), the fact of the matter is that only God knows what incomprehensible good God is working towards by allowing evil to exist in creature with free will for a short while. Thus from your perspective, ‘if’ you could create a universe you would never allow evil to exist and we would all be automatons, but from God’s perspective, having creatures that freely choose to love Him is of far more worth.

    1 Corinthians 2:9
    However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him–

    1 Peter 1:7
    These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith–of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire–may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    “Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things” (I Peter 1:10-12).

  27. 27
    Seversky says:

    BA77 @ 16

    You skipped it, but anyways,,,

    A Short History Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

    First, what do you mean by holding “a special place in reality”? Are you saying that I don’t exist unless you’re aware of me? Because I’m pretty sure I do.

    Second, even assuming that consciousness preceding reality makes any kind of sense, why should that mean consciousness will be seen to have some ill-defined “special place in reality?

    Third, your argument concerning the role of consciousness in quantum phenomena assumes a causal relationship between the observer and the observed outcome of the experiment. Yet quantum phenomena like entanglement undercut classical notions of cause-and-effect. If that’s the case then, in the two-slit experiment, you have a correlation of two phenomena, the observer and the observed, but you have no reason to assume the cause-effect sequence is going the way you assume. So where does that leave your argument concerning the primacy of consciousness?

  28. 28
    Axel says:

    ‘First, what do you mean by holding “a special place in reality”? Are you saying that I don’t exist unless you’re aware of me? Because I’m pretty sure I do.’

    One: Hope you don’t mind my interjectng, BA77, but, Seversky, it’s like this: We each live in a little word of our own, which God coordinates seamlessly at the mechanistic level, the joins only becoming apparent at the quantum level.

    Two: You do understand that ‘preceding’ here signifies preceding importwise, not temporally. So, having a specail place in reality makes perfect sense.
    ————
    ‘Yet quantum phenomena like entanglement undercut classical notions of cause-and-effect. If that’s the case then, in the two-slit experiment, you have a correlation of two phenomena, the observer and the observed, but you have no reason to assume the cause-effect sequence is going the way you assume.’

    Three: you seem to suggesting that at the quantum level ’cause and effect’ does not exist, not only in relation to entanglement, but everything else.

    In any case, it is only necessary to prove one instance of mind’s primacy over matter for it to be logically held to apply in toto. That was proved when they used a camera as the Observer, instead of a human observer.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    “First, what do you mean by holding “a special place in reality?”

    I mean consciousness holds the primary place in our material reality, both ontologically and geometrically, to quote Max Planck, the originator of quantum theory,

    I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
    As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

    “Are you saying that I don’t exist unless you’re aware of me?”

    No. Other minds certainly exist.

    “Because I’m pretty sure I do.”

    I’m glad you do. In fact, the fact that you are conscious and that you exist is the most sure thing you can possibly know about reality. (Decartes, Chalmers)

    “Third, your argument concerning the role of consciousness in quantum phenomena assumes a causal relationship between the observer and the observed outcome of the experiment. Yet quantum phenomena like entanglement undercut classical notions of cause-and-effect. If that’s the case then, in the two-slit experiment, you have a correlation of two phenomena, the observer and the observed, but you have no reason to assume the cause-effect sequence is going the way you assume. So where does that leave your argument concerning the primacy of consciousness?”

    Actually, agent causality is the only cause in existence. Law and Chance have never caused anything to happen in the universe. You are confusing explanation with causation. The ‘classical’ Christian founders of modern science understood the destinction between agent causation and mere explanation well. A former atheist clearly elucidates the destinction, and confusion of atheists, in the following article:

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf

    Of related interest:,,, as Stephen Talbott has clearly pointed out, a major problem with Darwinian explanations is how to describe the complexities of life without illegitimately using terminology that invokes agency,,,

    The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  30. 30
    Axel says:

    Wow! Satisfied, Sevensky?

  31. 31
    Axel says:

    ‘Of related interest:,,, as Stephen Talbott has clearly pointed out, a major problem with Darwinian explanations is how to describe the complexities of life without illegitimately using terminology that invokes agency,,,’

    Very, very comical. Absolutely Pythonesque. Yet they don’t seem to understand what chumps they routinely make of themselves.

Leave a Reply