Intelligent Design

USAToday: Evolution is Settled Science and Not a Religious Proposition

Spread the love

Truth may be, as Paul Dirac suggested, beautiful, but beauty is not always true. From the celestial spheres of the Greeks to Kepler’s heavenly harmonic tones, our dreams of beauty are often just that—dreams and not reality. But we dream on and today the most beautiful dream is evolution.  Read more

35 Replies to “USAToday: Evolution is Settled Science and Not a Religious Proposition

  1. 1

    Today’s sermon by Cornelis Hunter shows just how confused people can get with the boundaries of the science of Evolution.

    It is not stellar nucleosynthesis, it is not planetary formation and it is not even abiogenesis. It is noticing the fact that alleles change over time and working out how and why.

    Cornelius Hunter claims that “Evolution” is founded on a position that the “world arose spontaneously” and he then continues with “In reality there is no such empirical support. No overwhelming evidence and no unambiguous proof. ”

    Perhaps Hunter needs to contact Brent Dalrymple and get corrected ? The evidence is that the Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago and that evidence of living things appears a long time after that.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Of somewhat related note: ENV has a somewhat humorous article detailing the futile attempt of two materialists who tried to reduce the ‘sense of beauty’ to mere material mechanism.,,

    Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70321.html

    Though the article was somewhat technical, it was almost comical to read how every approach, in which the materialists tried to reduce the subjective sense of beauty to a mere material mechanism, was thwarted.,, But alas, don’t those materialistic researchers have even the faintest clue that,,,

    All Things Bright And Beautiful – poem
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4082996/

    ,,,come from God??

    What Encourages Belief in God? Amazing Sights of ‘Planet Earth,’ Says New Study – November 27, 2013
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....109644/cpf
    The argument from beauty needs no words…
    22 Unbelievable Places that are Hard to Believe Really Exist – photos
    http://www.boredpanda.com/amazing-places/

    Beauty. . . can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form.
    http://www.quodlibet.net/artic.....etic.shtml

    MercyMe – Beautiful
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Mr. Phipps, please do enlighten us with the scientific evidence as to how the world arose completely spontaneously

    Does the Probability for ETI = 1?
    Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054.
    http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1

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

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

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

    “If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our ‘Garden of Eden’, that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.”
    Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)
    Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe – Dr. Walter L. Bradley
    http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

    Many people simply presume that solar system formation is fairly well understood by science but that simply is not the case:

    New study sheds new light on planet formation – July 4, 2012
    Excerpt: The study,, began with a curious and unexpected finding: Within three years, the cloud of dust circling a young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus stellar nursery simply disappeared.”The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions,” said study co-author Inseok Song,,, “What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.”,,, “Many astronomers may feel uncomfortable with the suggested explanations for the disappearance of the dust because each of them has non-traditional implications,” Song said, “but my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-planet-formation.html

    Are Saturn’s Rings Evolving? July – 2010
    Excerpt: Not all is well in theories of planet formation, though. Astrobiology Magazine complained this week that many of the exoplanets discovered around other stars do not fit theories of the origin of the solar system.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100710a

    Lava World Baffles Astronomers: Planet Kepler-78b ‘Shouldn’t Exist’ – Oct. 30, 2013
    Excerpt: Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn’t exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles — one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn’t have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142915.htm

    Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets;
    Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems:
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110223b

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn’t Be There – Dec. 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Weighing in at 11 times Jupiter’s mass and orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-Sun distance, planet HD 106906 b is unlike anything in our own Solar System and throws a wrench in planet formation theories.
    “This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see,” said Vanessa Bailey, who led the research.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141629.htm

    Our Very Normal Solar System Isn’t Normal Anymore by Robert Krulwich – May 07, 2013
    Excerpt: As of this month, we’ve discovered 884 planets, 692 planetary systems, 132 of them with more than one planet and, strange to tell, almost none of them look like us.,,,
    “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply.” We had our frost line. We knew how solar systems formed. “It was a really beautiful theory,” he says. “And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”,,,
    “It really is something that I find deeply weird,” he (an astronomer) writes. “What does it all mean? I don’t know. I am certain that this single-minded emphasis on planets-in-habitable-zones is making people forget that there is still a lot of weird stuff happening out there and that we still don’t even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here.”
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulw.....al-anymore

    Ancient alien planets shake up view of our early universe – March 2012
    Excerpt: Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.,,, It is widely accepted that planets coalesce from the swirling disks of dust and gas that surround young stars. Classical models of planet formation hold that metal-poor stars are unlikely to harbor planets, while worlds should form far more easily around metal-rich suns. But recent discoveries, including the HIP 11952 system, have astronomers rethinking these models.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46.....3dzpdX5a6N

    Medium size worlds upset “Earth is not unique” planet modelling – January 2012
    Excerpt: But what has puzzled observers and theorists so far is the high proportion of planets — roughly one-third to one-half — that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. These ‘super-Earths’ are emerging as a new category of planet — and they could be the most numerous of all (see ‘Super-Earths rising’). Their very existence upsets conventional models of planetary formation and, furthermore, most of them are in tight orbits around their host star, precisely where the modellers say they shouldn’t be.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....modelling/

    Rocky Exoplanets – Reasons To Believe – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7DDPqyZED8

    The solar systems that scientists are currently finding, in our corner of the universe, simply do not match the ‘predictions’:

    Exoplanet Hunters Fail Predictions – August 2010
    Excerpt: There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected. There are Jupiter-mass planets in three-day orbits. There are planets with masses that are between those of the terrestrial planets in our solar system and the gas giants in the outer part of our solar system. There are Jupiter-mass planets with hugely inflated radii—at densities far lower than what we thought were possible for a gas-giant planet. There are giant planets with gigantic solid cores that defy models of planet formation, which say there shouldn’t be enough solids available in a protoplanetary disk to form a planet that dense. There are planets with tilted orbits. There are planets that orbit the poles of their stars, in so-called circumpolar orbits. There are planets that orbit retrograde—that is, they orbit in the opposite direction of their star’s rotation. There are systems of planets that are in configurations that are hard to describe given our understanding of planet formation. For instance, some planets are much too close to one another.
    But a lot of those surprises have to do with the fact that we have only one example of a planetary system—our solar system—to base everything on, right?
    What’s interesting is that we’ve found very little that resembles our example.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100831a

    More Evidence Our Solar System Is Uniquely Suited for Life – October 16, 2012
    Excerpt: Most planetary systems found by astronomers so far are quite different than our own. Many have giant planets whizzing around in a compact configuration, very close to their star. An extreme case in point is a newly found solar system that was announced on October 15, 2012 which packs five—count ‘em—five planets into a region less than one-twelve the size of Earth’s orbit!,,,
    The fact that almost all solar systems found so far are so different than our own has astronomers wondering if we are, in fact, the oddballs.,,,
    Fact is, “We don’t know why this didn’t happen in our solar system,” the spokesperson said. It’s going to require “a new generation of theories to explain why our solar system turned out so differently.”
    http://crev.info/2012/10/solar.....-for-life/

    How the Moon Supports the Privileged Planet Hypothesis – December 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Planetary scientists were optimistic that the Apollo missions would help decide among three leading hypotheses: capture, fission, and accretion. After Apollo, all three were rejected, leaving theorists without a theory until the “giant impact” hypothesis came along in the 1980s. Till recently, the scenario of a Mars-sized object striking the Earth at a glancing blow was hailed as accepted truth. TV documentaries animated the event handsomely, in vivid color. However, new observations have cast doubt on the (impact) idea.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79861.html

  5. 5
    RexTugwell says:

    Lincoln Phipps

    Cornelius Hunter claims that “Evolution” is founded on a position that the “world arose spontaneously” and he then continues with “In reality there is no such empirical support. No overwhelming evidence and no unambiguous proof. ”

    Perhaps Hunter needs to contact Brent Dalrymple and get corrected ? The evidence is that the Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago and that evidence of living things appears a long time after that.

    spon·ta·ne·ous [spon-tey-nee-uhs]
    adjective
    1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.

    2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
    3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.

    Spontaneously doesn’t mean recently. Hope that helps.

  6. 6

    Planetary accretion seems to be spontaneous in that there are no UFOs building the Earth. Sorry bornagain77 but the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Universe is a work of Fiction. You understand fiction ? If not then start with the Book of Genesis. It’s like the HHGTTG but without the mice or robots.

    The probability of Life as we know it is 1. We don’t know what the probability is for life as we don’t know it ! Humanity doesn’t know exactly what is life or what is essential for life.

    Compound that with not knowing how the fundamental constants of this universe would affect the formation of life as we don’t know it either.

    In all of this uncertainty all of sudden life goes from a probability of 1 to radically improbable and the only fix is God (or some intelligence) which is not life as we know it but something else entirely different.

    Ridiculous.

  7. 7

    RexTugwell,

    the problem is Cornelius Hunters nonsense about “No overwhelming evidence and no unambiguous proof.”

    Why do you think I mentioned for Hunter to contact Brent Dalrymple ?

    Please do try reading what I write ! It saves you having to copy+paste irrelevant dictionary entries and you might actually think.

  8. 8
    Joe says:

    Lincoln Phipps- Please tell us how to test the claim that the earth formed via a series of cosmic collisions.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Mr. Phipps, you last post is so incoherent that I think I will let it stand as is as to a testament of the irrationality atheists tenaciously cling to.

  10. 10
    RexTugwell says:

    Sorry Phipps, if Cornelius Hunter were a YEC you might have a point. However, I’m right and you’re wrong. Hope that help again.

  11. 11
    Axel says:

    Evidently, English is not your first language, Phippsy – which is rather strange, given your name.

    The very first words you utter in #6, ‘Planetary accretion seems to be spontaneous….,’ indicate uncertainty. You don’t stop there, however, but advisedly depict the reality of a positive ocean of uncertainty concerning life and its origin.

    Yet, despite this, you bizarrely end your wee disquisition with a singularly fatuous jibe at the one rational explanation. Yours is, evidently, is not merely religion, but a fundamentalist religion.

    There is no escaping metaphysics, since it delineates the scientist’s assumptions. However, when the materialist would-be, theoretical scientist aggressively pushes his position with no evidence to support it, his secular-fundamentalist religion is as vacuous as his science, since it relies totally on mechanistic empirical evidence. Religious believers worthy of the name hold that some knowledge can be and routinely is directly infused into the mind.

    All you can do is cite an evidently wretched like-minded soul, with just a stub for an entry in Wikipedia; ‘Sorry. I don’t have time to answer you myself…’ And you expect the people here to read your recommended books?

    I can’t see you lasting long on here. After you’ve been intellectually ‘tarred and feathered’, your services will no longer we required. ‘Don’t call us…’

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The fate of the Newtonian synthesis between 1880 and 1930 should tell us that “settled science” is too often a contradiction in terms, an excuse to impose the current status quo.* KF

    PS: This feature article, on the earlier Ptolemaic synthesis and the Copernican Revolution, should provide fair warning on how we often fail to properly understand the course of paradigms and scientific revolutions. The myths of inevitable secularism-led progress in the modern era and a triumphant war of science with religion are just that, myths.

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Recall, Physics is the senior science and it has seen two fundamental revolutions in 350 years. That should give us all pause. And, when we seek to reconstruct a remote unobserved past on traces in the present, a modicum of recognition of how many ways we can be wrong and need to be open to correction would be helpful.

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    The probability of the Pentagon, Eiffel Tower, the works of Shakespeare, antibiotics, the internet, a website called ucommondescent etc. are all 1.

    Yes, all intelligently designed.

  15. 15
    jerry says:

    A lot of problems here.

    The term “evolution” is not defined but we seem to think we know what it means.

    The forces behind the formation of the universe and the solar system have nothing to do with evolution. No one has ever made a connection.

    Brent Dalrymple has provided nothing to the evolutions debate. If he has, then someone please let us know what it is.

  16. 16
    lifepsy says:

    Lincoln Phipps, 1

    [“the science of Evolution”] is noticing the fact that alleles change over time and working out how and why.

    What a strange comment.

  17. 17

    Rextugwell,

    nope you have misunderstood what my concern is. Cornelius Hunter claims that “Evolution” is founded on a position that the “world arose spontaneously” ….

    OK within the meaning of words there is no problem there but now my concerns…

    and he then continues with “In reality there is no such empirical support. No overwhelming evidence and no unambiguous proof. ”

    i.e. Hunter (a world renown expert in what exactly ?) is claiming that there is no evidence for the natural formation of our Sun, solar system and planet. That’s a plainly ignorant claim as a visit to any library over the past 50 years would tell Cornelius.

  18. 18
    Jeff M says:

    I have never understood why people think that evolution is beautiful. It is decidedly not. The whole process runs on death, suffering and pain. The evolutionist may look at a fossil and wonder of its beauty, but he doesn’t linger too much on the process that he believes brought the structure into being. He doesn’t think about the countless individuals who had to die and suffer for the blind process to stumble onto optimal design. Evolution isn’t beautiful, its sadistic.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Lincoln Phipps you claim that the ‘natural formation of our Sun, solar system and planet’ has plenty of evidence and it is ignorant to claim that it was not natural and yet you were shown in post 3 & 4 that natural theories for the ‘natural formation of our Sun, solar system and planet’ have fallen severely short of their mark. For instance from post 4:

    Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn’t Be There – Dec. 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Weighing in at 11 times Jupiter’s mass and orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-Sun distance, planet HD 106906 b is unlike anything in our own Solar System and throws a wrench in planet formation theories.
    “This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see,” said Vanessa Bailey, who led the research.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141629.htm

    Our Very Normal Solar System Isn’t Normal Anymore by Robert Krulwich – May 07, 2013
    Excerpt: As of this month, we’ve discovered 884 planets, 692 planetary systems, 132 of them with more than one planet and, strange to tell, almost none of them look like us.,,,
    “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply.” We had our frost line. We knew how solar systems formed. “It was a really beautiful theory,” he says. “And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”,,,
    “It really is something that I find deeply weird,” he (an astronomer) writes. “What does it all mean? I don’t know. I am certain that this single-minded emphasis on planets-in-habitable-zones is making people forget that there is still a lot of weird stuff happening out there and that we still don’t even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here.”
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulw.....al-anymore

    So Mr. Phipps is this how you do science? Ignoring all contrary evidence? Or is English not your first language? ,,, Ignorance either way as far as I can tell!

  20. 20
    CuriousCat says:

    I find the following statement interesting.

    The probability of Life as we know it is 1. We don’t know what the probability is for life as we don’t know it !

    I think, usage of the probability concept here is questionable. Probability is a concept related with probabilistic processes. We, for instance, never use the probability in such a statement: “The probability of this building constructed here is 1” (though this building has already been constructed by humans) because constructing a building is not a random process but a deterministic process depending on the wills of the managers, engineers, workers, etc. On the other hand, it is appropriate to say that “the probability of this building being constructed spontaneously is zero” (since we KNOW that a natural process cannot construct a building). However, this building has already been constructed, and it exists before our eyes. That it exists does not say anything about the probability of it being constructed spontaneously.

    So, “Life as we know” exists. It is true. Nevertheless, quantifying this phenomenon in terms of probability (i.e. saying that “The probability of Life as we know it is 1”) requires, first of all, accepting that random natural processes are totally responsible from the occurrence of life. This is actually the naturalistic claim, which is a different debate I won’t go into. What I would like to point out is, since “the probability of life as we know it is 1” is a derivative statement from the naturalistic claim, it is incorrect to present it as an objective probabilistic statement supportive of the naturalistic hypothesis. I think this is a misuse of probability concept.

  21. 21
    Querius says:

    Tennyson does Phipps

    Logic to right of him,
    Facts to left of him,
    Common language in front of him
    Volley’d and thunder’d;
    Storm’d at with shot and shell,
    Boldly he rode and well,
    Into the jaws of humiliation,
    Into the blog from Hell
    Rode the words, six hundred.

    It was bold and glorious, but was it debate or was it simply butchery?

    -Q

  22. 22

    Jerry,

    did you actually read the OP ? if you noticed I cited the part where I had a particular issue where Hunter said ,

    The world arose spontaneously. In reality there is no such empirical support. No overwhelming evidence and no unambiguous proof.

    I have got Hunter to change one of his posts before (the Human-Chimp common ancestor topic) so I really don’t care to spend to much time handholding you.

    Anyway it is Hunter’s own commentary that makes Brent Dalrymple, for example, relevant. And you certainly know Dalrymple is relevant given his testimony in US court cases regarding age of the earth.

    The Earth’s and Sun’s formation is very relevant as living things don’t live on magic but elements that were formed in previous stars before our Sun and solar system formed. That combination of elements is the feedstock for the organic compounds of life and without them then life on Earth as we know it would be impossible.

    The angle from a naturalism view is given the element abundance then life forms spontaneously and the ID view (or creationist view) is that even with the element abundance and all the time in the world then life does not form spontaneously.

    The ID/creationism angle is a maze is that varies from some kind of atheism with quantum aliens through to the bacon hating God/Allah. I’m not going to bother writing down all those myths.

  23. 23

    CuriousCat,

    in all what you wrote you missed the key point and that is that we do not know the probability of life as we don’t know it i.e. “Humanity doesn’t know exactly what is life or what is essential for life.”

    It is axiomatic that what we see around us is life but what we do not know is all the conditions that are not Earth-life that could end up with life.

    I’m not using the fact of the existence of life to support the naturalist view. I’m pointing out the ignorance of all in understanding all the inputs into all possible forms of life.

    Do you want to try again ?

  24. 24
    RexTugwell says:

    Not buying it Phipps. I read you loud and clear. If your concern is regarding the natural formation of the sun, solar system and planets, why bring up the age of the earth at all? At best your writing is incoherent. Try to express your thoughts a bit more clearly. Thanks

  25. 25

    bornagain77,

    I understand you have these gaps and have poked in God or ID or whatever you fancy. About your only saving grace is that you don’t quote the Koran.

    When someone says “no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see” then the model is in time extended so that it explains the gaps. In science that extension doesn’t mean bolting on Koranic Sura or Bible Verse.

    So no, it means finding a natural cause.

  26. 26
    scordova says:

    Jeff M,

    Long time no see! Thanks for visiting.

    Sal

  27. 27

    RexTugwell,

    I’ve used “spontaneous” numerous times on this forum and I know how nuanced it is. Spontaneous can be microseconds or billions of years.

    Why bring up the age ? Well because it happened spontaneously back then. You could guarantee that there will be YEC reading this forum too. I don’t know if you are one but when it comes to “ID” then it is a pick-n-mix for origins.

    So I couldn’t care less that you only want it to mean what you think it means and can’t think out of your box.

    Hunter denies the evidence for the natural (i.e. spontaneous) formation of this world. That’s my point.

  28. 28
    CuriousCat says:

    OK Phipps, second try. However, as I’ve known you from the “brief history of time” I’ve spent in this discussion board, it would be pretty much meaningless.

    I have not missed, but I have not talked about the second point, since I prefer to talk about ID/Darwinism issue over NEW biological findings. Actually there’s a hint there, I said “This is actually the naturalistic claim, which is a different debate I won’t go into”. If you really need a comment on your “main” issue, I agree we do not know the “event space” of life in this specific universe, but we also do not know the “sample space” of ALL possible universes, so it is, I think, a path which leads to nowhere.

    My point WAS (and still is) to show that there is a conceptual mistakes in what you wrote. Your argument starts with saying that probability of life the way know is one, and I think this argument is incorrect. Life the way that we know EXISTs, but this does not mean it’s probability is ONE. The moment you emphasize probability, you are already assuming a random (thus naturalistic) process. So why do I emphasize this? I believe these kind of logical “tricks” (used by both sides from time to time) give a certain unfair leverage in the ID/Darwinism debate.

    I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you simply tried to avoid responding to my point, simply saying that I missed your main point. OK, let’s assume that I’m an idiot who cannot understand anything except your first statement (lack of memory property, let’s say). Still, don’t you think you need to answer to my criticism in a logical and maybe in a little bit polite manner?

  29. 29

    Jeff M,

    I agree with you there. That though is a problem for Theistic Evolution (and in some regards certain versions of ID). It is also Cornelius Hunter’s argument that “we dream on and today the most beautiful dream is evolution.”

    It’s not very clear what his angle is on this beauty.

    The very fact that most of life eats other life (heterotroph) should tell us that life (and evolution) is beautiful if eating other living things is beautiful.

    If there is a god then it is reasonable to call it sadistic as it permits the process of evolution to exist. If there is no god then as a natural and spontaneous fact of life we just have to avoid being lunch.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Lincoln Phipps, cherry picking quotes does not reflect well on you. For instance I noticed that you did not quote this which was directly underneath what you quoted in the next paper:

    we still don’t even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here.

    But Mr. Phipps let’s go deeper and focus on this word ‘natural’ that you are so enamored with. Can you please show me your ‘scientific’ evidence that we live in a completely ‘natural’ materialistic universe that is completely free from God’s hand? ,,, Your own consciousness, which you experience first hand, testifies against you in this matter:

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

    In fact, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    Leggett’s Inequality is pretty startling in establishing this fact:

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist (and Nobel Prize winner) Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU

    If you have trouble accepting the implications of the preceding video, don’t feel alone, Nobel prize winner Anthony Leggett, who developed Leggett’s inequality to try to prove that an objective material reality exists when we are not looking at it, still does not believe the results of the experiment that he himself was integral in devising, even though the inequality was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude. He seems to have done this simply because the results contradicted the ‘realism’ he believes in as a materialist (realism is the notion that an objective material reality exists apart from our conscious observation of it).

    A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
    Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct.
    Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,,

    (to which Anton Zeilinger responded)

    When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate.
    http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/

    The implications of Leggett’s Inequality are more fully laid here by Richard Conn Henry who is a Physics Professor at John Hopkins University

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    Now Mr. Phipps, you have two options as far as I can tell. 1. Continue lying to yourself as you have more than demonstrated that you are capable of doing, or 2. Finally admit to yourself and everybody else that God is ‘natural’!

    Verse and Music:

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

    Alison Krauss – There Is A Reason
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Supplemental notes:

    The following is very interesting since, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which ‘coincidentally’ corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler’s identity:

    Picture of CMBR
    https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg

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

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

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

    Also of interest is two other places in the universe where ‘unexpected roundness’ is found:

    Sun’s Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists – (Aug. 16, 2012) —
    Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....150801.htm

    and this ‘unexpected roundness’:

    Bucky Balls – Andy Gion
    Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,,
    http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm

    The delicate balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars is truly a work of art. Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a famed astrophysicist, is the scientist who established the nucleo-synthesis of heavier elements within stars as mathematically valid in 1946. He is said to have converted from staunch atheism into being a Theist after discovering the precise balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated this:

    “I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.”
    Sir Fred Hoyle – “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12

  32. 32
    Querius says:

    While horse and hero fell,
    He that had fought so well
    Came thro’ the jaws of humiliation,
    Back from the blog from Hell,
    But with all that was left from his valiant charge,
    Tattered, bloody, and broken, the failed arguments,
    He turns with . . . and charges once again.

    😉

    -Q

  33. 33
    Graham2 says:

    All of this incredible beauty is based on a silly and decidedly unscientific idea which is never spoken out loud: The world arose spontaneously. In reality there is no such empirical support. No overwhelming evidence and no unambiguous proof. Evolution is not a scientific fact

    I think CH is a bit confused.

  34. 34
    shader says:

    Phipps, your biggest problem is that you are married to materialism. You assume two erroneous things:

    1. You assume that because the earth/solar system are here, that this proves that a purely natural reason must exist.

    2. (and this is the big error) You assume that scientists already know how the solar system came about.

    To think that scientists can put together a computer program (which, btw, is intelligently designed) and use this program to try and figure out how elements could all “magically” come together and create a solar system, is the height of absurdity.

    But then, thinking that the entire universe just came about due to an unguided, big explosion is the kind of belief that defies logic, so I don’t fault you for it. Believing in fairy tales is something we’ve all done. However, most of us grow up and realize fairy tales aren’t true. Materialistic evolutionists never quite take this step, but live in fantasyland their entire lives. It’s cute.

  35. 35
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    Graham2:

    I think CH is a bit confused.

    In what sense? Please explain so I can fix the OP.

Leave a Reply