Intelligent Design

Thoughts on Christian Darwinism

Spread the love

Christian Darwinism is the ultimate oxymoron. Its thesis is: accidentally on purpose, and intentionally designed with no intention or design.

Let’s face it, either the Christian worldview is correct or the Darwinian worldview is correct in this particular debate. The two views are completely, irrevocably, and catastrophically irreconcilable on many levels.

The big problem for Christian Darwinists is that rigorous scientific investigation, empirical evidence, basic combinatorial mathematics, and what is now known from cutting-edge information theory, renders the Darwinian mechanism completely impotent to produce anything but the utterly trivial in the history of life.

I ask myself, Where does this bizarre Christian Darwinism self-contradictory reasoning come from?

I think I have an answer. The Darwinian establishment has been remarkably successful in convincing people that anyone who disagrees with Darwinian orthodoxy has abandoned reason, and this establishment has the power to excommunicate such heretics from respectable company.

Some “Christians” would rather enjoy the company of those who seek to destroy their faith through unreason, rather than to defend it through reason, even when the science and evidence is on their side.

This is a pathetic phenomenon to observe.

44 Replies to “Thoughts on Christian Darwinism

  1. 1
    Blue_Savannah says:

    Christians need to stop being intimidated by darwinists and the media and proudly and LOUDLY proclaim “the emperor (darwin) has no clothes!”

    It’s laughable that some people actually believe blind random chance could build molecular machines so complex and efficient that our best engineers look to them for guidance.

  2. 2
    Ilion says:

    Sure, it’s pathetic. But then, human beings are, in general, pathetic; so one expects that many, if not all, of them will do pathetic things.

  3. 3
    AMW says:

    I’m a former YEC turmed TE/EC. When I read what atheist evolutionists have to say about the thought processes and motivations of creationists I get frustrated. They mostly cast aspersions and suggest that the person in question is irrational and simply doesn’t want to face the evidence. Those were not my motivations for being a YEC.

    This post is the photo-negative of those atheist posts. I did not accept the theory of evolution because I was seeking approval. On a personal level my acceptance has actually been rather costly.

    The bottom line is this. Anytime you have to explain a social phenomenon in terms of the character failings of the people involved your explanation is probably wrong and even more probably self-serving.

  4. 4
    Neil Rickert says:

    Let’s face it, either the Christian worldview is correct or the Darwinian worldview is correct in this particular debate.

    There isn’t a single Christian worldview. And, for that matter, there isn’t a single Darwinian worldview either.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    re Neil 4:

    Christopher Hitchens Understands Christianity Better Than Some (Christians do)
    Excerpt: In the local Portland Monthly the infamous atheist Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Marilyn Sewell. I found Hitchens’ response to the following question by Sewell to be dead accurate.

    The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from Scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make a distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

    I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

    Touche! It appears that Christopher Hitchens understands the basics of Christianity better than many self proclaimed Christians.
    http://nearemmaus.wordpress.co.....than-some/

    Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – The Premise
    Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related. Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
    http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

    ”””””

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
    http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
    Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
    (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    Mark 10:6
    But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

  6. 6
    O'Leary says:

    AMW at 3, “The bottom line is this. Anytime you have to explain a social phenomenon in terms of the character failings of the people involved your explanation is probably wrong and even more probably self-serving.”

    A quibble: Actually many “social” phenomena ARE best explained by “the character failings of the people involved.”

    For example, false accusations of childhood sexual abuse may stem from a global sense of failure on the part of the accuser combined with an inability to accept responsibility for personal choices that led to perceived failure.

    Such false accusations thrive in an era when there are plenty of true accusations. The true accusations account for the complete certainty of those who make the false ones. But because – in the case of the false ones – there is no fact base for the abuse, they require a separate origin account. Personal circumstances and disposition are the best place to begin.

    It is *intellectual* history that cannot be accounted for by mere character failings, and I think that is what you meant.

    However, it can be very difficult to separate intellectual from social history. It’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age when the science elite is dominated by atheists, proponents of any Christian view of evolution that could never be in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage.

  7. 7
    aedgar says:

    The basic problem with “Christian Darwinists” is their inconsistency with the faith they proclaim to have. A Christian believes that God is the Creator, which Jesus himself affirmed:

    But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’. – Mark 10:6

    For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. – Mark 13:9

    A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent. This is the reason why non other than Dawkins has far more respect for YEC’s than “Christian Darwinists”.

    So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. – Rev. 3:16

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    AMW, It is funny but I find the term ‘Theistic Evolution’ to be severely misconstrued from what the proper usage should actually be. Theistic Evolutionists state, as is popularly held today, that God’s actions cannot be distinguished from the purely material processes of the universe. Whereas the more proper usage of the term ‘Theistic Evolution’ would state something to the effect, gradual evolution occurred but purely material (non-teleological) processes are insufficient to account for the change that is supposed to have occurred. Which is fully consistent within a broad scope of ID. This ‘disingenuous of definition’ for Theistic Evolution has always struck me as a blatant ‘compromise’ to accommodate the atheist’s materialistic worldview, as well as struck me as being severely out of touch with what modern science tells us about reality.,, For one thing science shows us that reality is Theistic, not materialistic, in its ultimate foundation;

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    Max Planck – The Father Of Quantum Mechanics – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also ‘just so happened’ to have a deep Christian connection.)

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    etc.. etc..

    The main point being AMW is that reality itself reduces to a ‘information theoretic’ foundation, just as is postulated by Theism (particularly postulated in John 1:1-3), i.e. reality does not reduce to a purely material foundation as postulated by materialism!!! Thus I personally find it particularly disconcerting that Theistic Evolutionists would even feel any need whatsoever to accommodate the atheistic materialists in the first place since one, ‘material reality’ is merely a ‘secondary reality’ based on the primary reality of God in the first place, (a fact which is directly contrary to what Theistic Evolutionists popularly believe is possible today), and two, purely material processes are grossly inadequate to explain even the most minor parts of the staggering levels of integrated information we find within even the simplest of life.

    further notes;

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    In the preceding video, ‘Gretchen’ asked if quantum entanglement/information could also somehow be measured in protein structures, besides just DNA, and it turns out that quantum entanglement/information has already been detected in protein structures. Here is one such measure;

    Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
    Excerpt: “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
    http://www.princeton.edu/main/...../60/95O56/

    The preceding is solid confirmation that far more complex information resides in life than meets the eye, for the calculus equations used for ‘cruise control’, that must somehow reside within the quantum information that is ‘constraining’ the entire protein structure to its ‘normal’ state, is anything but ‘simple information’. For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site:

    PID controller
    Excerpt: A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

    Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
    Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
    http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism’s inability to explain this ‘transcendent quantum effect’ adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a ‘eternal soul’ for man that lives past the death of the body.

    Further notes:

    The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ&hl=en

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  9. 9
    Bantay says:

    Christian-Darwinism is simply complacent, apathetic, unwise and ultimately, compromising.

    So sad…many so-called Christian Darwinists are oblivious to the fact that those who they cozy up to in the name of science have a more subtle and sinister motive, to rid the world of theism entirely.

    Even more sad is that they (apparently) are unaware that there is simply no need to compromise truth when the evidence clearly suggests that design is the better explanation.

  10. 10
    James Grover says:

    I think the general cause of ID as an objective, nonreligious enterprise is not helped by posts like this one.

    Speaking only for myself, I’m a bit wary of ID advocates who seem to believe that the leading lights of the movement are never wrong, at least not substantively wrong. What I mean by this is that many IDers (especially the ones in this forum) seem to believe that to question or criticize the work of say, Dembski, is to show weakness. This seems to me to be a religious approach and certainly not a scientific one.

    Surely the people here don’t believe objectively that Dembski, Wells, Behe et al are always right, or that all of the criticisms of their ideas are always wrong. You wouldn’t know that to read through this blog, however. To me, that’s really the strongest evidence of ID being a religious construct. That, and posts like this one from Mr. Dodgen.

  11. 11
    AMW says:

    O’Leary @ 6:

    It’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age when the science elite is dominated by atheists, proponents of any Christian view of evolution that could never be in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage.

    By the same logic, it’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age (and a country) that the bulk of the general populace are theists who doubt the theory of evolution, the proponents of any Christian view of biology that is firmly in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage. Especially when those proponents overwhelmingly publish in the popular press.

    Does that mean ID proponents aren’t really convinced by their own arguments? Are they just following their baser instincts? Maybe a few, but I doubt that most of them are.

    Mutatis mutandis for theistic evolutionists.

  12. 12
    AMW says:

    Or, rather, mutatis mutandis, the same holds for theistic evolutionists.

  13. 13
    Mung says:

    A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent. This is the reason why non other than Dawkins has far more respect for YEC’s than “Christian Darwinists”.

    So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. – Rev. 3:16

    Help me out here. So being a YEC is being HOT, and being a Darwinist is being COLD. And anyone in between Jesus will spew out of his mouth, and we know this because of some verse pulled out of it’s context from a letter John wrote to some church in Asia 2000 years ago?

  14. 14
    StephenB says:

    —James Grover: “I think the general cause of ID as an objective, nonreligious enterprise is not helped by posts like this one.”

    The Christian Darwinists started this party by injecting religion into a scientific discussion, insisting that a credible, omnipotent God must have done it Darwin’s anti-design way and could not have done it any other way. Because this error occurs at the intersection of science and religion, its corrective must be expressed in scientific/religious terms. Gil is simply making the unassailable point, and the eminently relevant point, that Christianity, which posits a directed process, cannot be reconciled with Darwinism. What could be more ridiculous than saying God designed the evolutionary process, except that he didn’t.

    —“Surely the people here don’t believe objectively that Dembski, Wells, Behe et al are always right, or that all of the criticisms of their ideas are always wrong. You wouldn’t know that to read through this blog, however. To me, that’s really the strongest evidence of ID being a religious construct.”

    Actually, we ID proponents welcome any constructive criticism from informed critics. The problem is not our unwillingness to accept the criticism but our critics’ unwillingness to become informed. You, for example, misuse of the word “construct” by characterizing it as a form of collective agreement. In fact, an ID construct, properly understood, is part of an ID methodology, such as “specified complexity” and irreducible complexity.” Obviously, these methodologies, contain no religious references, so ID science cannot be “about religion,” to use one of those mindlessly murky phrases that Darwinists [and Christian Darwinists] love to use. By manipulating the language and using words in multiple ways, our adversaries hope to discredit us by creating confusion about the ID arguments that are actually being made. This is their only hope because they certainly have no arguments. Thus, they are reduced to motive mongering. Ironically, it is our adversaries who refuse to follow the evidence wherever it leads, Darwinists, and Christian Darwinists alike.

  15. 15
    velikovskys says:

    Is this a case of drawing a distinction between evolution and Darwinism ? The Catholic Church,not concerned with social advantage ,recognizes that evolution isn’t in conflict with it’s dogma. It seems they believe you can be both.

  16. 16
    James Grover says:

    StephenB:

    Actually, we ID proponents welcome any constructive criticism from informed critics. The problem is not our unwillingness to accept the criticism but our critics’ unwillingness to become informed.

    My point was that unlike “conventional” science, for want of a better term, ID science doesn’t seem to have any blind alleys. ID scientists always seem to be right on the first try, in other words. I noted that there never seems to be any substantive criticism of ID hypotheses from pro-ID observers, and your response seems to be that it’s because there’s never any constructive criticism and there aren’t any informed critics. But that wasn’t my point, of course. I’m wondering why there’s never any informed criticism from ID supporters.

    There are some who regularly post comments here that run to thousands of words, but never in any of those that I’ve seen is there a hint of criticism, even just in passing.

    Don’t you consider this odd? How can science be done in the absence of substantive disagreement or constant, unwavering acquiescence?

  17. 17
    James Grover says:

    Ack–that last sentence in #15 should say “…in the absence of substantive disagreement or in a state of constant, unwavering acquiescence?”

  18. 18
    StephenB says:

    O’Leary @ 6:

    —“It’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age when the science elite is dominated by atheists, proponents of any Christian view of evolution that could never be in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage.

    AMW in response:

    “By the same logic, it’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age (and a country) that the bulk of the general populace are theists who doubt the theory of evolution, the proponents of any Christian view of biology that is firmly in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage. Especially when those proponents overwhelmingly publish in the popular press.”

    The same logic doesn’t apply because Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous.

    O’Leary chooses [C]

    I choose all of the above

    What is your choice?

  19. 19
    James Grover says:

    Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous…

    I choose all of the above

    Leaving aside the fact that you seem to be using “Darwinists” to construct a tautological point, I’m pretty sure I asked a civil question and I’m greeted by being called, indirectly, “irredeemably stupid.”

    Another unusual thing I notice about IDers, especially here, is that while they’re pretty quick to complain about tone (usually rather than answering pointed questions), they don’t have much trouble slinging insults themselves.

    You lose teh interwebs, my friend.

  20. 20
    Matteo says:

    My point was that unlike “conventional” science, for want of a better term, ID science doesn’t seem to have any blind alleys. ID scientists always seem to be right on the first try, in other words.

    Au contraire. ID advocates have been waiting for more than fifteen years to hear any sort of rational criticism from folks who’ve taken the trouble to accurately represent and honestly address ID arguments.

    Waiting…waiting…waiting…

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    James Grover, ID comes in for criticism constantly. I have personally witnessed hundreds of ‘criticisms on these very boards. Perhaps you are merely surprised that dogmatic atheists are not given free run of these boards and this is what you find ‘out-of-place?!? Do you have any particular criticism you would like to place?

    As to yourself though, do you hold to neo-Darwinism?? i.e. Are you materialistic atheist? If so to what foundation do you hold now that materialism is formally, and empirically, falsified?

    notes;

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.
    http://www.4truth.net/site/c.h.....ialism.htm

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html

    This following study adds to Alain Aspect’s work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the ‘hidden variable’ argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous ‘spooky action at a distance’ found in quantum mechanics.

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

  22. 22
    StephenB says:

    —James Grover: “Leaving aside the fact that you seem to be using “Darwinists” to construct a tautological point, I’m pretty sure I asked a civil question and I’m greeted by being called, indirectly, “irredeemably stupid.”

    You didn’t get greeted by any such thing. That comment was about a class of people and it was a response to a response concerning someone else’s comment. It had nothing to do with you unless you are two people posting as one.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover James Grover, if you are a neo-Darwinist, how can you possible explain quantum entanglement/information being found in molecular biology, on a massive scale, since quantum entanglement/information falsified local realism/materialism as its own causation in the first place???

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism’s inability to explain this ‘transcendent quantum effect’ adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a ‘eternal soul’ for man that lives past the death of the body.

    Further notes:

    The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Yeah James I know that, but HOW DID HE DO IT?

    notes;

    James Grover, also of late, in conjunction with this ‘higher dimensional’ component being found within molecular biology on such a massive scale, I’ve been fascinated by the fact that the 3-Dimensional world folds and collapses into a tunnel shape as the higher dimension of the speed of light is approached:

    Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the preceding video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences:

    The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions
    Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer)

    Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – view
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

    As well James, please note how our 3-Dimensional reality is found to be based on ‘higher dimensional mathematics;

    The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss & Riemann – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/

    (Of note; the ‘higher dimensional’ square root of negative one is necessary for understanding quantum mechanics Schrodinger’s equation)

    ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. – Granville Sewell

    (of note: higher dimensional geometry was necessary to develop General Relativity)

    Bernhard Riemann
    Excerpt: For his Habiltationsvortrag Riemann proposed three topics, and against his expectations Gauss chose the one on geometry. Riemann’s lecture, “On the hypotheses that lie at the foundation of geometry” was given on June 10, 1854. This extraordinary work introduced (what is now called) an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold and its curvature tensor. It also, prophetically, discussed the relation of this mathematical space to actual space. Riemann’s vision was realized by Einstein’s general theory of relativity sixty years later.
    http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/riemann.html

    4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity – Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/

    Yet James, as you probably well know, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are notoriously difficult to ‘unify’;

    notes;

    I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

    The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).

    Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man.

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

  25. 25
    James Grover says:

    StephenB, you seem to be having trouble keeping up, or are just continually dodging the question(s). You said that “… Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous…

    I choose all of the above”

    I belong to “class of people” to which that statement was directed; and I said that you indirectly referred to me (as one of the class) as “irredeemably stupid.”

    What’s so hard to understand?

  26. 26
    StephenB says:

    —James Grover: “Don’t you consider this odd? How can science be done in the absence of substantive disagreement or constant, unwavering acquiescence?”

    I think that being pelted from all sides, slandered by the press, expelled from the academic community, and abused by the court system will suffice for the requisite disagreement.

  27. 27
    James Grover says:

    BA77:

    Yeah James I know that, but HOW DID HE DO IT?

    I don’t presume to know. Something about a “higher power,” is suspect.

  28. 28
    James Grover says:

    StephenB, I think I’m through with you now. I don’t know why you’d want to sustain an intellectual discussion with one of the irredeemably stupid class.

  29. 29
    James Grover says:

    Boy, I have to get better at previewing. #27 should say “Something about a higher power, I suspect.”

  30. 30
    James Grover says:

    Matteo:

    ID advocates have been waiting for more than fifteen years to hear any sort of rational criticism from folks who’ve taken the trouble to accurately represent and honestly address ID arguments.

    Matteo, you seem to have missed the point along with StephenB. My question had nothing to do with criticism of ID from without; I was asking why there’s never any criticism from within.

    StephenB in #26 seems to have conceded the point without explaining it, other than through the typical complaining about people who ask pressing questions being big meanies (or “shamefully disingenuous”).

  31. 31
    StephenB says:

    —James Grover: “I belong to “class of people” to which that statement was directed; and I said that you indirectly referred to me (as one of the class) as “irredeemably stupid.”

    What’s so hard to understand?”

    Well, I can’t be held accountable for what class you belong to until you tell me. As a tribute to our nascent relationship, however, I will try to find another way to characterize someone who thinks that God can direct an undirected process. Let’s see, how about, “irrational?” Is that civil enough?

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    James Grover and StephenB, here is a inspirational video that just came out:

    The Mountain
    http://video.yahoo.com/editors.....60678.html

    James Grover, thanks for being honest to the evidence.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    James Grover, you do know when you honestly admitted this about quantum entanglement/information being found in molecular biology on a massive scale;

    “Something about a higher power, I suspect.”

    ,,that that statement separated you from the Theistic Darwinists, as they are popularly understood, that toe the party line of neo-Darwinism,??? For when you admitted that the higher dimensional ‘quantum’ evidence pointed to a ‘higher power’, you in fact conceded that there is something in molecular biology that can be separated from material processes, and can actually be discerned as being from ‘God’! For you see James, Theistic Evolutionists claim that what you just did, in discerning the action of a ‘Higher Power’ is impossible!

  34. 34
    StephenB says:

    —James Grover: “StephenB in #26 seems to have conceded the point without explaining it, other than through the typical complaining about people who ask pressing questions being big meanies (or “shamefully disingenuous”).”

    I didn’t take your questions seriously because they were uniformed by your own false perceptions. ID scientists disagree all over the place about which methods are best. Do you know anything about the difference between “counterflow” and “irreducible complexity?” Do you know anything about the diverse approaches used by Hugh Ross as opposed to those of William Dembski? I doubt it.

    More to the point, your questions are irrelevant. You ignore ID science, question the legitimacy of ID’s methods, and challenge its conclusions on the grounds that its members are too palsy walsy. What nonsense.

  35. 35
    AMW says:

    StephenB @13,

    The same logic doesn’t apply because Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous.

    O’Leary chooses [C]

    I choose all of the above

    What is your choice?

    None of the above.

    Look, I hold no animosity toward you or anyone else at UD. My whole point is that one should be charitable when discussing the motives of people he disagrees with.

    I think it should give you pause that your comment could come straight off a PZ Meyers post if you dropped the word “Darwinists” from it and pluralized “Christian.”

  36. 36
    CannuckianYankee says:

    James Grover,

    Hello James,

    Before I comment in a thread I usually read the OP and the comments so I can follow along, and also so that I can see if there’s anything that has not been addressed, or may require looking at from a different angle or perspective. With that I found this:

    “Surely the people here don’t believe objectively that Dembski, Wells, Behe et al are always right, or that all of the criticisms of their ideas are always wrong. You wouldn’t know that to read through this blog, however. To me, that’s really the strongest evidence of ID being a religious construct.”

    Look at it this way: if you want to see science being done under religious constructs, consider how it is done among atheist materialists and also among TE’s. I think there’s enough of that to go around. We here at ID are for the most part, if not theists; generally agnostic or theistic leaning. That may be a factor in how we think, but it has the same bearing on those among us who do science as on those who do science who are not theists, or who are theists, but believe that God is silent.

    So let’s break down the religious assumptions here:

    COMMON WORLDVIEW ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SCIENCE LAB:

    Atheist – “there is no god or gods, so what we’re looking at must have begun from natural processes alone. Besides, if a god or gods did exist, he/she/they would not have done it that way.”

    This is a religious assumption that has nothing to do with looking at the evidence and coming to some reasonable conclusions – yet this is a typical atheist apriori.

    Teleological Darwinist or Theological Evolutionist (whatever is the proper term – I’ve heard so many): “God exists, but He has left us no physical signature in nature. Nature operates as though God is not needed because God made it appear that way. So when we look at nature we must separate our religious views from the science.” Huh? The above is also a religious assumption and has nothing to do with the science whatsoever.

    Now we get to our typical ID proponents (and no, I do not agree with all of them, but I try to find common ground): “Given the possibility that there might be a designer, what sort of evidence might show or demonstrate design?” Again, some ID friendly people are atheist or agnostic, while the majority are religious. There does not appear to be an apriori assumption made in such an approach.

    Now let’s look at all 3 of these approaches, and you tell me who’s making the most assumptions about God and nature here?

    The atheist Darwinist approaches science right off the bat from the assumption that God does not exist.

    The TE Darwinist approaches science right off the bat in the same way the atheist Darwinist does without questioning the basic a priori assumptions.

    While the ID non-Darwinist might be religious, he/she is in a position to look at evidence for what it says. Where it says “no design,” the ID non-Darwinist is prepared to let it go and move on to other evidence. However, where there is the appearance of design, to investigate further without assuming that it can’t be design seems like the most logical approach (and remember, even atheist Darwinists like Richard Dawkins have suggested that there is an elusive “appearance” of design in nature – it seems like a natural assumption to make).

    So the ID proponent is actually less likely to form an opinion on the appearance of design from a priori assumptions; because the idea that there might be design is not an assumption, but more of a question.

    Now I realize that this may be a slight diversion, but you said it, so I felt that it needed addressing.

    You’re asking if we agree with Behe, Wells, Dembski, on everything? Even if we did, what would make that aspect alone evidence of a religious construct within ID? Have you looked at world religions lately? I guess your thinking we treat Dembski (for example) like some sort of guru.

    Not at all. This is a blog created by Dembski, so I think when we disagree with him, we’d better make sure we have all our thoughts together. So there’s that dynamic. I’m certain the same dynamic occurs on PZed’s blog as well.

    And finally, let me ask you this: Do you think it unreasonable to look at something that appears designed, and not ask the question whether it actually is? What makes that a religious approach?

  37. 37
    Clive Hayden says:

    Mung,

    And anyone in between Jesus will spew out of his mouth, and we know this because of some verse pulled out of it’s context from a letter John wrote to some church in Asia 2000 years ago?

    Yes.

  38. 38
    StephenB says:

    —“Look, I hold no animosity toward you or anyone else at UD. My whole point is that one should be charitable when discussing the motives of people he disagrees with.”

    I agree that my remarks @18 were intemperate and will, therefore, discipline myself by retiring from the thread. Two benefits will follow:

    [A] Christian Darwinists will be free to interact with other ID proponents without interruption from me.

    [B] Christian Darwinists will be free to avoid the central question about how God can direct an undirected process, which is the subject of the thread, and continue evaluting ID, which is not the subject of the thread.

    What a deal!

  39. 39
    paragwinn says:

    StephenB @ 38:
    “I agree that my remarks @18 were intemperate and will, therefore, discipline myself by retiring from the thread.”

    Well said.
    That’s probably the same kind of discipline that KL and idcurious exercised in light of their silence to date.

  40. 40
    AMW says:

    StephenB at 38,

    First, I respect your self-imposed discipline. It speaks well of you. If you’re still reading, though, I will briefly address your point [B] about God directing and undirected process.

    My science and theology aren’t fully developed, but at this point I really don’t think God directed the evolutionary process in order to bring Man about. I think He initiated the process through His creation of the universe, and now interacts with Man as a creature capable of responding to Him.

    Did God create the universe with the intention of interacting with such a creature? Well, if that implies that He wanted to interact with bald bipedal primates, I would say no. But if it simply implies that He was willing to interact with whatever intelligent creature(s) came about through the processes of evolution, I would say yes.

    As a final thought, consider that there are plenty of Biblical passages that make reference to God’s intentions for people “before the foundations of the world.” Yet modern embryology clearly teaches us that which people are born (i.e., which sperm interact with which eggs) is an undirected process. So it’s not just TE’s that have to grapple with God’s “direction of an undirected process.” Unless there’s a theory of Intelligent Insemination I’m not aware of.

  41. 41
  42. 42
    Mung says:

    Hi Clive,

    A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent.
    here

  43. 43
    Clive Hayden says:

    Mung,

    A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent.

    I agree, but I don’t see what is out of context.

  44. 44
    Mung says:

    I don’t see

    Blindness is nothing to be ashamed of.

Leave a Reply