Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Tom Bethell muses on Evolution Weekend

Spread the love

51rCibFn5xL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg From Tom Bethell, author of Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates, at American Spectator:

The Lord’s Day, Meet Darwin Day… and Shudder – Methodological Atheism
Gray told Darwin that he didn’t see why they couldn’t have both Darwin’s theory of evolution and a role for a designing intelligence. Darwin would have none of it, but realizing that a thoroughgoing materialism wasn’t an easy sell, he actively concealed this aspect of his thinking. In one notebook he reminded himself to “avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism.”

Darwin promoted his materialistic worldview indirectly by supporting the principle that science should invoke only material causes. According to this methodological rule, you needn’t be an atheist to do science, but you should offer only hypotheses consistent with atheism when doing science. Call it methodological atheism. As he told geologist Charles Lyell, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it require miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”

This methodological dogma is in full bloom today. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, … in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism,” wrote Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin. “Moreover,” he added, “that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” More.

Yes there is still an Evolution Weekend. Lord knows why. Darwin boys, the people who still think facts matter aren’t with you on your anti-religious crusade. They’re rethinking evolution, for what it shows, not affirming it for what you need it to be.

See also: Hey, it’s Darwin Day, again…

and

When genome mapper Craig Venter made clear he doubted universal common descent… Did you ever hear this story? Wonder why he thought that?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

14 Replies to “Tom Bethell muses on Evolution Weekend

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Authority Replaces Evidence: Hear the Introduction to Darwin’s House of Cards – February 15, 2017
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03496.html

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this quote from the article,,,

    The Lord’s Day, Meet Darwin Day… and Shudder – February 10, 2017
    Excerpt: In The Origin of Species, Darwin suggested the idea of a God who created a few original forms and then let the “laws” of nature govern the outcome. “It is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms,” he wrote, “as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws.”,,,
    As he told geologist Charles Lyell, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it require miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”
    https://spectator.org/the-lords-day-meet-darwin-day-and-shudder/

    In the following article, Steven Weinberg, an atheist, comments on how quantum mechanics undermines Darwin’s goal of trying to explain the origin of humans as purely the result of natural laws without reference to any further miracles.

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg
    – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: “(the Schrödinger equation) is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation.,,
    There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics.”,,,
    “So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?”,,,
    The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/article.....mechanics/

    Thus, according the Weinberg,,,

    “There is not even the possibility of chaos”, i.e. random chance, “until people choose what to measure,”

    ,,, and yet Darwinists insist that humans and all their behaviors are all ultimately the result of random chance operating within natural law.

    Moreover, besides ‘random chance’ not existing until a choice, (by a ‘person’), is made, in the following experiment it was shown that reality itself “does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    To say the preceding experiment by Truscott is incompatible with atheistic materialism is to make a dramatic understatement. In fact, as a Christian, I find quantum mechanics to be very comforting

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater

    Moreover, besides the fact that in quantum mechanics ‘humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level’ and thus contradicting the Darwinian goal of trying to explain the origin of man as being the result of natural laws, no one can seem to find out exactly what those natural laws, that Darwinists are reliant on, are suppose to be.

    That is to say, there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the physical universe for Darwinists to appeal to, such as there is, for example, a ‘law of gravity’ within the physical universe for physicists to base their science on.

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    http://www.scientificamerican......-ernst-in/

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Thus whilst Weinberg, an atheist, may object to quantum mechanics because,,

    “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”,,,
    “the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    ,, Thus whilst Weinberg may object to humans being brought ‘into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level’ since it directly undermines the Darwinian goal of trying to explain the origination of humans as the result of natural laws, the fact of the matter is that Darwin, nor anyone else, has ever been able to find out exactly what those ‘impersonal physical laws’ of Darwinian evolution actually are.

    It seems rather futile for Weinberg, and other atheists, to want to be able to describe the existence of humans, and the various behaviors of humans, as being solely the result of ‘impersonal physical laws’ of the universe, and of Darwinian evolution in particular, when no one has the faintest clue what those impersonal physical laws, that supposedly produced humans and their behaviors, might actually be for Darwinian evolution in the first place.

    Moreover, besides the conscious observation within quantum mechanics undermining the Darwinian goal of trying to explain humans as being the result of natural laws, Darwinism is also undermined by ‘quantum protein folding’.

    As Darwin himself stated in the OP

    “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it require miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”

    And yet, despite Darwin’s disdain for the miraculous, protein folding itself is found to require ‘miraculous additions’

    In fact, it is now known that proteins do not find their final folded form by random processes as is held in the neo-Darwinian view of things:

    The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications – Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65521.html

    Confronting Science’s Logical Limits – John L. Casti – 1996
    Excerpt: It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10^127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids. (The universe is 13.7 x 10^9 years old). In fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the University of Pennsylvania showed that the mathematical formulation of the protein-folding problem is computationally “hard” in the same way that the traveling-salesman problem is hard.
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~ro.....Limits.pdf

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    The reason why finding the final folded form of a protein is so hard for supercomputers is that it is like the ‘traveling salesman’ problem. Problems which are ‘Just about the meanest problems you can set a computer (on) ‘.

    DNA computer helps traveling salesman – Philip Ball – 2000
    Excerpt: Just about the meanest problems you can set a computer belong to the class called ‘NP-complete’. The number of possible answers to these conundrums, and so the time required to find the correct solution, increases exponentially as the problem is scaled up in size. A famous example is the ‘travelling salesman’ puzzle, which involves finding the shortest route connecting all of a certain number of cities.,,,
    Solving the traveling-salesman problem is a little like finding the most stable folded shape of a protein’s chain-like molecular structure — in which the number of ‘cities’ can run to hundreds or even thousands.
    http://www.nature.com/news/200.....13-10.html

    And yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at:

    Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins – May 8, 2013
    Excerpt: quantum computing is, “in some cases, really, really fast.”
    McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous “travelling salesperson” problem that’s been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,,
    “This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast,” McGeoch says. “There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it’s built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it’s thousands of times faster than anything I’m aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes — it does as well as some of the best things I’ve looked at. At this point it’s merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....122828.htm

    Scientists achieve critical steps to building first practical quantum computer – April 30, 2015
    Excerpt: If a quantum computer could be built with just 50 quantum bits (qubits), no combination of today’s TOP500 supercomputers could successfully outperform it (for certain tasks).
    http://phys.org/news/2015-04-s.....antum.html

    Thus we have very good circumstantial evidence that proteins must be finding their final folded form by some method of quantum computation.
    In fact, we now have direct physical evidence for quantum entanglement/coherence in proteins, (which is a prerequisite for quantum computation),

    Quantum coherent-like state observed in a biological protein for the first time – October 13, 2015
    Excerpt: If you take certain atoms and make them almost as cold as they possibly can be, the atoms will fuse into a collective low-energy quantum state called a Bose-Einstein condensate. In 1968 physicist Herbert Fröhlich predicted that a similar process at a much higher temperature could concentrate all of the vibrational energy in a biological protein into its lowest-frequency vibrational mode. Now scientists in Sweden and Germany have the first experimental evidence of such so-called Fröhlich condensation (in proteins).,,,
    The real-world support for Fröhlich’s theory (for proteins) took so long to obtain because of the technical challenges of the experiment, Katona said.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-10-q.....otein.html

    And here is a paper that proved that protein folding belongs to the physics of the quantum world and that protein folding does not belong to the physics of the classical, i.e. Darwinian, world:

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Today, Luo and Lo say these curves can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair. By conventional thinking, a chain of amino acids can only change from one shape to another by mechanically passing though various shapes in between.
    But Luo and Lo say that if this process were a quantum one, the shape could change by quantum transition, meaning that the protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement/coherence, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, (in every DNA and protein molecule), is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ 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? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinian evolution 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!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016
    Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought.,,,
    A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-08-q.....ation.html

    Physicists find extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states – Lisa Zyga – March 4, 2016
    Excerpt: Many quantum technologies rely on quantum states that violate local realism, which means that they either violate locality (such as when entangled particles influence each other from far away) or realism (the assumption that quantum states have well-defined properties, independent of measurement), or possibly both. Violation of local realism is one of the many counterintuitive, yet experimentally supported, characteristics of the quantum world.
    Determining whether or not multiparticle quantum states violate local realism can be challenging. Now in a new paper, physicists have shown that a large family of multiparticle quantum states called hypergraph states violates local realism in many ways. The results suggest that these states may serve as useful resources for quantum technologies, such as quantum computers and detecting gravitational waves.,,,
    The physicists also showed that the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles. In addition, even if a quantum hypergraph state loses one of its particles, it continues to violate local realism. This robustness to particle loss is in stark contrast to other types of quantum states, which no longer violate local realism if they lose a particle. This property is particularly appealing for applications, since it might allow for more noise in experiments.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-p.....alism.html

    Thus, the insurmountable problems between Darwinian evolution and quantum mechanics go much deeper than Weinberg let on in his article ‘The Trouble With Quantum Mechanics’. In other words, every time protein folding occurs, the reductive materialistic precept of Darwinian evolution is falsified.

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

  4. 4
    rvb8 says:

    Also from this author:

    “Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?” 2009; Vales Lake Publishing, who ever the hell they are?

    “The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science”. 2005 Regnery Press.

    ‘Regnery Press?’ In their stable of fine writers; Ann Coullter, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich…

    “Darwin’s House of Cards.” 2017; The Discovery Institute Press. 🙂 Heh.

    This author denies the HIV/AIDS link, Global Warming and of course Evolution. He was employed by a nutjob New Orlean’s DA, Jim Garrison, to dig up evidence (what does this word mean to these people?), on one Clay Shaw, connecting this individual to JFK’s assasination. The jury deliberated for less than one hour and threw it out of court.

    This book, ‘Daewin’s House of Cards’, is the latest damning broadside from the the battleship, USS DI?

    The final quote from BA77 above, John 1:1-4, is a favourite of mine, and should suffice any further discussion.

  5. 5
    Marfin says:

    Rvb8- Can I take from this you are willing to enter into a discussion on the validity of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms.
    Oh wait my bad, its Rvb8, sorry about that.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8, ‘you’, as if there could be a ‘you’ within atheistic materialism, took exception to John 1:1-4

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    My question for you is this, if John 1:1-4 is so out of touch with the science of Quantum Mechanics (and with biology), why has Anton Zeilinger, a leading expert in Quantum Mechanics, referred to John 1:1 in his talks?

    48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum mechanics
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    Further notes as to the information/quantum mechanic link:

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

    It from bit? by Rachel Thomas – Dec. 2015
    Excerpt: John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) is a legendary figure in physics. He worked with Niels Bohr to explain nuclear fission, worked on the hydrogen bomb at Los Alamos, and taught many eminent physicists including Richard Feynman, Kip Thorne and Hugh Everett. He was the father of modern general relativity, was key in developing our understanding of black holes and, indeed, popularised the term “black hole” (after it was suggested to him by an audience member at a conference) and coined many others, including “worm hole” and “quantum foam”.
    Wheeler categorised his long and productive life in physics into three periods: “Everything is Particles”, “Everything is Fields”, and “Everything is Information”. (You can read more about his life and work in his autobiography, Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam.) The driving idea behind the third period was spurred by his contemplation of the age-old question: “How come existence?” And his answer, first published in a brilliantly written (and very entertaining) paper in 1989, was it from bit:
    “It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”,,,
    One clear consequence of “it from bit” is the importance of the observer: reality requires one. “I think [Wheeler] was very radical,” says Zeilinger. “He talks about the participatory universe, where the observer is not only passive, but the observer in certain situations makes reality happen.”
    https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    Personally, I find quantum mechanics to be VERY comforting to the Christian worldview and to be VERY antagonistic to atheistic materialism.

    In the formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics, Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.” here:

    “It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”
    – Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
    Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

    I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

    John1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater

    Supplemental notes:

    Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
    Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity).
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8, here are some videos that you, as well as Christians, may find educational:

    A Two-Minute Clip on Homosexuality Every Christian Should Watch / February 16, 2017
    https://youtu.be/mCLms7J84JY
    Sam Allberry—editor for TGC, speaker for RZIM, founding editor of Living Out, and author of Is God Anti-Gay?—addressing the Church of England General Synod in London this week.

    You Are Not Your Sexuality (Sam Allberry)
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-are-not-your-sexuality

    Isn’t the Christian View of Sexuality Dangerous and Harmful? (Sam Allberry)
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/isnt-the-christian-view-of-sexuality-dangerous-and-harmful

    How Can the Church Help Those Battling Same-Sex Attraction? (Sam Allberry)
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-can-church-help-battle-same-sex-attraction

    What Christians Just Don’t Get About LGBT Folks (Rosaria Butterfield)
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-christians-just-dont-get-about-lgbt-folks

    Why Is God’s Sexual Ethic Good for the World? (Jackie Hill Perry, Sam Allberry, Rosaria Butterfield)
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-gods-sexual-ethic-is-good-for-world

    How Celibacy Can Fulfill Your Sexuality (Sam Allberry)
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-celibacy-can-fulfill-your-sexuality

  8. 8
    mw says:

    Hello, rvb8 @ 4.
    You almost add a smiley against the scriptural quote of BA77 in relation to Jn 1:1-4.

    Well: –

    In the beginning was a grunt; died and was buried. It became a fossil. It arose again, saying, all human things came into being through a grunting simian. ‘It’ was the grunt, and the grunt became the word, and ‘It’ became a god. The grunt was the light for Darwin. Not one thing came into existence intelligently except through a mind most grunted. A god most reliable, said Darwin looking over his shoulder, and with the lid of his brain removed awaiting an inspection lamp.

    You did add a smiley to “Darwin’s House of Cards.” 2017; The Discovery Institute Press.

    However, amongst others, David Coppedge wrote: http://crev.info/2017/02/fossi.....ory-again/

    “Bethell’s point is worth pondering. Fossils don’t tell stories; people do! I highly recommend Darwin’s House of Cards. Bethell has had many personal conversations with leading evolutionists, from Karl Popper to Stephen Jay Gould and many others. He knows the Darwin literature well. He writes for the layman. This is a great compilation of evidence that Darwinian theory is all bluster and no substance.”

    Darwinian theory has a good dose of bone divination, coupled with blindness to the fact that stasis within limits of variation is the predominate pattern for all life forms: regulated design.

    Alex Williams writes:
    “The unalterable nature of the functional body plan is a discovery that destroys the foundations of ‘evolution on the grand scale’. Life on Earth does not constitute a single evolutionary tree, as Darwin imagined, but a forest of created kinds and their descendants.” http://creation.com/heredity-i.....ot-genetic

  9. 9
    mw says:

    David Coppedge makes another comment: –

    “As stated in yesterday’s commentary, Tom Bethell made an important point about fossils in his book Darwin’s House of Cards (Discovery Institute Press, 2017). That point is this: it’s impossible to tell ancestry from fossils. He quotes Gareth Nelson, Colin Patterson, Norman Platnick and Richard Lewontin in agreement. With living organisms, you can watch one animal giving birth to another. That’s not possible with fossils. They are just isolated data points in a vast unseen landscape, like portions of auto parts scattered over the globe.”

    For the rest of his comments, see http://crev.info/2017/02/fossi.....to-be-old/

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    The Strange Link between the Human mind and Quantum Physics – By Philip Ball – 16 February 2017
    Excerpt: The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.”
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story.....um-physics

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    Marfin,

    the mechanisms for Evolution are well known.

    What’s more interesting is the mechanism(s) for ID, now that would be interesting.

    Evolution: Organisms reproduce, to do that sexually the DNA must be replicated and then in some manner recombined; errors in this process occur and are expressed phenotypically. If some of these new expressions are advantageous, they are handed down to the next generation.

    The environment which is the non-random part of evolution is exquisitely precise in its Selection. There is also genetic drift, which I don’t clearly understand, and the very poorly understood, highly sensationalised Epigenetics.

    Now I know that this repitition will cause derision here, but I’m at a loss as to how how this clear and easy to understand principle of RM/NS is so anathema to science.

    It’s testable, makes predictions, and withstood 150 years of claims it’s in its death throws; pretty powerful stuff. Oh, and if Marfin or many others were to post at science sites, they will find their derision more comprehensively flung back.

    What is it actually, that makes you think you are in a position to ask for evidence, while producing none. Cut and paste appeals to Science BA77 has no serious understanding of? Your ability to be utterly unaware of how your non-production of evidence, while demanding evidence is wonderous. Of producing nonsensical anograms, building fake ‘green screen’ labs, and producing in house peer review, is amazing.

    I come here regularly and am never dissapointed at the utter lack of curiosity at show. Along with an amazing amount of back slaps and self congratulation; for having done what in the past 15 years prey?

  12. 12
    Marfin says:

    So RM/NS lets deal with NS first NS is no more than quality control at best but unlike human production process`es it has no input into the quality it receives , it cannot go to RM and tell it that the quality of mutations it is having to deal with are junk and RM better buck up and and get its act together , so NS produces nothing it only conserves what RM GIVES IT.Now RM as Coyne call them copping ERROR`S
    YES ERRORS the whole of the complexity of all of nature is built upon trillions of errors , yes very scientific. So please cite the specific tests and experimentation to back up this claim if this is the reality of the matter this must be ubiquitous in nature it must be every where ,we should be able to grab a bunch of critters from the wild and show this process , ops we cant.And when we do it in the lab with fruit flies we after what would constitute 100,000s of years of evolutionary time we end up with fruit flies.If this is the process that purveys all of nature show me it in action , shown me one creature on its way to becoming another type of creature either in nature or in the lab , and if you cannot what does that tell you.In a discussion with other atheists and asking for evidence you get comments like “the fossil record” no someone saying the fossil record does not constitute evidence its just saying there is a fossil record.So I say show me how the fossil record supports your belief. Now you saying RM/NS does not constitute evidence it just says these thing exist not how they actually work or whether they support or actually disprove evolution.
    So how does the process work and how does it produce all we see and know , and please support with evidence not just statements of supposed facts.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Molecular Machine Menagerie Brightens – February 20, 2017
    Excerpt: In 1998, former AAAS president,,, Bruce Alberts,, said,,, “Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”,,,
    Some take-home lessons so far (20 years later):
    1. Each machine is extremely well built for its function.
    2. The machines are very complex, consisting of multiple protein and/or RNA molecules.
    3. They often have moving parts that interact with other machines in precise ways.
    4. They work in specific locations at specific times.
    5. Minor changes can have deleterious effects, or even cause failure.
    6. ‘Fail-safe’ mechanisms ensure proper operation.
    7. They are built from complex specified information in genes.
    That list has intelligent design written all over it.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03503.html

  14. 14
    mw says:

    Thanks, BA77, for the link on another thread to http://sciencerefutesevolution.....chive.html

Leave a Reply