TV nite: Media to watch — or watch for

The Stein/Dawkins interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-cxUYmxiTs Question: is the God Hypothesis a religious book? Why? ID presents evidence that highly supports a creator of the universe. Is that a religious conclusion? ID also presents evidence that supports an intelligence behind the origin of life and complex life. Is that a religious conclusion? ID also presents evidence supporting that the origin of Earth is probably the only one of its kind in the universe. Is that a religious conclusion? jerry

Scamp @ 11 No kidding.... chuckdarwin

Ben Stein went down hill after this. https://youtu.be/f4zyjLyBp64 Scamp

ChuckyD claims that: "By making ID such an amorphous, vacuous thing, a person can fit just about everything into it, including the kitchen sink…." Complains the man who believes in a, ahem, 'scientific theory' that can easily invent just-so-stories to 'explain away' completely opposite findings,

"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter

As is obvious from the preceding quote by Dr. Hunter, this is not science, this is 'the dog ate my homework' lame excuse making by Darwinists As Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated in 2015, ““If,,, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”

Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble - President of International Union of Physiological Sciences https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

Even Imre Lakatos himself, who was considered one of the top three philosophers of science of the 20th century, observed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”

"In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he (Lakatos) also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.,,," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory

Karl Popper himself, (of falsification fame), called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

Popper also stated, "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." - Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

And Darwinists simply refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory, (and thus, according to Popper himself, Darwinists are refusing to speak about reality). Here are several examples of empirical falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory.

1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

Whereas Darwinists simply refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory, on the other hand ID is easily falsifiable, (although it has never been falsified). All anyone has to do in order to falsify ID is show just one example of coded information that does not come from an intelligent mind. All you need is one example and ID would be neatly falsified. Shoot, there is even a 10 million dollar prize awaiting the first person who can falsify ID:

Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution USA - 14 Jan, 2020 Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at www.evo2.org. ,,, "A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days," said Marshall. "One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they'd set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity." https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

So there you go ChuckyD. Besides neatly falsifying ID, fame and fortune, not to mention a Nobel prize, await you. Just demonstrate that coded information can come into existence without an intelligent mind bringing it into existence. If you don't mind ChuckyD, I won't be holding my breath for you, nor anyone else, to try to prove the impossible. Namely. that material processes can create immaterial information. Frankly, perpetual motion machines are far less impossible. Quote and Verse:

,,, "In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” - Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8 --Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University, (Newton's alma mater), for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

bornagain77

CD - I've said it very often, but again: You're a Deist. There's quite a lot in that you never seem to present at all. Dawkins is an atheist - so he opposes your view. Classical Deism is an ID proposal. In fact, ID is more compatible with Deism (in many ways) than with Theism. I mean, we're discussion worldviews here so you have a distinct belief on that - and if you're right, then the Deist god is proof that ID is correct and materialism is false. So, you'd be right and Dawkins wrong. The fact that you defend Dawkins as if you're a fellow-atheist is a little strange as I see it.

I am disappointed that Dawkins didn’t simply come back with a WTF?

That's why it is so funny. It was obviously a joke - you can see Stein smirking, and Dawkins fell right into it and took it seriously. As if anyone could calculate the probability of God's existence. But that's Dawkins - that scene said everything about the guy. Silver Asiatic

God questions are Catch 22s. I admit that I am disappointed that Dawkins didn’t simply come back with a WTF? But it doesn’t change the fact that Dawkins remained consistent on the issue of ID, notwithstanding Stein’s post interview crowing that “Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design.” The whole thing was childish…. chuckdarwin

No, the funniest thing that Dawkins did was when he said the probability of God not existing was 99%. Then when he said he didn't really know he was asked if it could be 49%. He didn't like that. "It's quite far from 50%." When asked to defend that, he said he didn't know. Silver Asiatic

The Dawkins-Stein interview was never the outrageous takedown that ID folks claim. Dawkin's only references to a designer or a superior intellect are in the context of panspermia, an idea that many biologists, including Francis Crick, have discussed. Stein should stick to hawking eye drops... By making ID such an amorphous, vacuous thing, a person can fit just about everything into it, including the kitchen sink.... chuckdarwin

I think I'll stick to The Expanse, The Book of Boba Fett and Star Trek: Discovery. Seversky

That's a good reminder to make a donation for the DI. A great organization - takes a lot of unjust ridicule and abuse. I'm grateful for what they do -- including this blog which is one of the best. Silver Asiatic

ChuckyD, it appears you are still a little miffed about how badly Richard Dawkins looked in his interview with Ben Stein in the movie "Expelled":

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Design..."No Intelligence Allowed" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgWl4OqAH6I Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&t=1770s

bornagain77

DI could get Ben Stein to write the screenplay....... chuckdarwin

Looking forward to it - thanks. A theatrical release is a big challenge - but I think the DI film team is up for it. Silver Asiatic