What is Intelligent Design?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

April 6, 2015

Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It is always good to go back to basics every once in a while. This piece is a short introduction to Intelligent Design for those reading about it or studying it.

Read More.

Comments

Piotr claims: “Darwinism” (I suppose you mean modern evolutionary biology) is not about the creation of molecular machines. So you say that neo-Darwinism, i.e. the modern synthesis. does not explain the creation of molecular machines???? Really??? That's good to know cause Darwinism would have a 'whole lot of explaining' to do if it did try to demonstrate molecular machines could arise by unguided material processes: Venter: Life Is Robotic Software - July 15, 2012 Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter. http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/ No, Scientists in Darwin's Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close - Casey Luskin - June 6, 2013 Excerpt: We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s.,,, But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. 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." (Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_072871.htmlbornagain77_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, I did not claim that Darwinism has no math in it. I claimed that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis to empirically test against so as to potentially falsify it as other overarching theories of science have. Big difference!
Ok, but what is the point of including the Highfield quote in your links? I don't see how it advances your case at all, when Maynard Smith's earlier book is readily available.daveS_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

BA77, To clarify my statement from #18, if I'm not mistaken, all of the quotes in your #3 are interpretations by non-biologists. I don't see any actual biologists complaining about the lack of a rigid mathematical basis for "Darwinism". I will get back to your other sources later today.daveS_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

daveS, I did not claim that Darwinism has no math in it. I claimed that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis to empirically test against so as to potentially falsify it as other overarching theories of science have. Big difference! Moreover, whenever the mathematics of population genetics are applied to Darwinian claims, in any kind of rigorous manner, neo-Darwinism is found to be falsified: Biological Information – Purifying Selection (Mendel’s Accountant) 12-20-2014 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJZDsQG4kQ Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf Biological Information - Mutation Count & Synergistic Epistasis (mutation accumulation) 1-17-2015 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gdoZk_NbmU Biological Information - Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 - video playlist (Behe - Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle - "Haldane's Ratchet" - Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford - 2013 Excerpt: We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage. Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as "Haldane's Dilemma" is very real. Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon "Haldane's Ratchet". http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d4_47bcf08eda0e4926a44a8ac9cbfa9c20.pdfbornagain77_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

#16 BA77 "Darwinism" (I suppose you mean modern evolutionary biology) is not about the creation of molecular machines. It's about heritable changes in the living world, over many generations, in different time scales (from varying allele frequencies to speciation and phylogeny). Evolutionary theory uses lots of rigid mathematical models which yield useful predictions. Ask Joe Felsenstein, who has spent all his long academic career doing fundamental reseach in maths-rich areas such as theoretical population genetics, coalescent theory, phylogenetic inference, etc. I'd be happy to discuss such stuff if it didn't mean veering off topic. To refresh your memory, the topic is: What [if anything] is Intelligent Design?Piotr_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Of ironic note here is that any metric that could substantiate ID as best explanation for a biological feature is the same metric that would substantiate natural processes as best explanation. The insistence that there is no valid ID metric is necessarily a simultaneous admission that there is no mathematical support for Darwinism (I.E., evolution via entirely non-intelligent processes). The terms "natural" (combined with selection) and "random" (combined with mutation) are ideological qualifiers that have no scientific place in evolutionary theory. To my knowledge, such selection and such mutation have never been shown in any mathematical or demonstrative way as being sufficient to generate, even in principle, the functioning diversity of highly complex biological technology we find in life. Darwinism is an ideological assumption, nothing more.William J Murray_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

BA77, Edit:~~One thing about your set of links in #3 that stands out is that John Maynard Smith is the only biologist represented.~~ Highfield's statement about Maynard Smith's chapter in a popular science book:
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.
is completely mooted by Maynard Smith's book from 20 years earlier on the same subject, Evolution and the Theory of Games, which is full of equations and mathematics.daveS_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

correction to 16 Piotr, funny that you try to shield Darwinism from scrutiny by calling ID a 'cargo cult', but fail to realize that it is in fact the SAME EXACT empirical evidence that would falsify ID and that would establish Darwinism as a proper science instead of the pseudo-science that it is. Namely, the creation of a single molecular machine by unguided material processes. Go figure. We know for a 100% fact that Intelligence has a 100% probability of producing non-trivial functional information/complexity. Whereas no one has ever seen unguided material process produce as such! Willful ignorance of the scientific issue at hand is no excuse for such a lapse in basic reasoning skills on your part.bornagain77_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Piotr, funny that you try to sheid Darwinism from scrutiny but fail to realize that it is in fact the SAME EXACT empirical evidence that would falsify ID and that would establish Darwinism as a proper science instead of a pseudo-science. Namely, the creation of a single molecular machine by unguided material processes. Go figure. Willful ignorance of the scientific issue at hand is no excuse for such a lapse in basic reasoning skills on your part.bornagain77_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

#13 BA77, The title of this thread is "What is Intelligent Design"? And in the very first comment you change the topic (capitalisation follows the original): What is Science? ... Is Intelligent Design Science? ... Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science ('cuz, firstly, it has No Rigid Mathematical Basis)... OK, whatever "Darwinism" is, the present subject is Intelligent Design, not "Darwinism". Does every discussion of Intelligent Design have to be immediately sidetracked in favour of discussing the alleged shortcomings of "Darwinism"? Is there really nothing to discuss as regards Intelligent Design itself? If you require a Real Science to have a Rigid Mathematical Basis or at least to build some quantifiable formal models, Intelligent Design Theory looks more like a Pathetic Cargo Cult.Piotr_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Phoenix again reveals attitude and agenda, imagining that by creating a mocking schoolyard taunt distortion of the descriptive expression, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I) he can then dismiss it and its import; that the only observed adequate cause -- on trillions of cases in point -- is intelligently directed configuration, aka design. Thus revealing the sort of puerile mentality we are dealing with. KF PS: I suggest a read here for those of a more reasonable approach: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/functionally-specific-complex-organisation-and-associated-information-fscoi-is-real-and-relevant/kairosfocus_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Piotr, instead of honestly admitting that Darwinism has no rigid falsification criteria, tries to shift the burden and say that ID has no rigid falsification criteria. This simply not true. Whereas there is no experimental finding that atheists will accept as a falsification for neo-Darwinism, ID is easily falsifiable. A single molecular machine produced by what are perceived to be unguided material processes would falsify ID:
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_
It is also interesting to note how dishonest some atheists have been in regards to falsely claiming that unguided material processes have produced molecular machines when in fact they have done no such thing:
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
Here is an apt quote in regards to ID being easily falsifiable and Darwinism being essentially unfalsifiable:
"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
Of supplemental note: neo-Darwinism claims that biological information is 'emergent' from a material basis. Advances in science have falsified that fundamental neo-Darwinian claim: First, quantum entanglement requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause to explain its existence:
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/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
And ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
And this non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale in every DNA and protein molecule:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain - Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija - 2006 Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural - amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy - classical and quantum state, and (3) information - classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system. http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘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 Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.
"[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM "The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism." - Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D- Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism
Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialist basis. Verse and Music:
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. Phillips, Craig & Dean - Great I Am - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhlDGS8wTeU
bornagain77_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Piotr If ID is junk science then why do you spend so much time on this site? What does that say about you? You're like the 9th grader hanging around the playground picking on the 6th graders.scottH_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

#11 Phoenix, Corrected, thanks!Piotr_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
“Functional Irreducibly Algorithmic Complex Organisation”, or whatever you call it...
You forgot "Specified". It's "Functional Irreducibly Algorithmic Specified Complex Organisation."phoenix_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

johnnyb, Dembski's ID work has been a complete bust. In his entire career, he's been unable to provide even one example of biological design in nature.phoenix_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Johnny, I have read some of the linked papers before, and I don't find anything there that could be paraded as the rigid mathematical basis of Intelligent Design. There isn't a single equation in your article ("...further research will work out quantitatively how different kinds of features contribute to RIC..." -- oh, a promissory note, thank you very much). Dembski's probability limits are useless if you don't know what events have produced the object in question (and we won't know that for ID, because it's mainly interested in the outcome, not the process, of design). "Functional Irreducibly Algorithmic Specified Complex Organisation" [edit: full name corrected], or whatever you call it, is not quantifiable even in theory, let alone practice. Maybe Kairosfocus's "methinks it is like a fishing reel" criterion counts as rigid maths?Piotr_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Piotr - There are several. You can read about Dembski's original Design Inference, you can read about my formulation of irreducible complexity with computability theory, you can read about Algorithmic Specified Complexity (which is basically equivalent to the independently-derived functional information), you can read about active information in search algorithms, and how active information can be applied in biology. You should read some of the linked papers - it is a very fascinating subject!johnnyb_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Can you guys remind me what the rigid mathematical basis for Intelligent Design is?Piotr_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

DaveS - A more apt question would be, can you *find* a rigid mathematical basis for it? I agree with Chaitin's assessment, but it is easy enough to find out - just ask on the websites that claim that Darwinian evolution is a fact, fact, fact, and you will usually get some vague tautological statement. You might get Dennett's dictum that anytime that you have variations, heredity, and differential fitness you will get evolution. That is *somewhat* true, but it doesn't tell you what kind of evolution you will get (you might get devolution or total extinction). There is nothing in Darwinian evolutionary biology that will tell you, mathematically, how to reliably gain complex adaptations. Part of that is that, right now, evolutionary biology more-or-less refuses to consider questions about what complex adaptations even *are*. Irreducible Complexity is one possible definition. Chaitin proposed using variations on the halting problem for mathematical evolution. But current evolutionary biology refuses to consider it because each realistic definition usually produces outcomes that materialists, with a few, notable exceptions, don't want to talk about.johnnyb_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

JB: Very well put, as usual. KFkairosfocus_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Thanks, I will have a look.daveS_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 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 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods. On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600 As an example of the 'mathematical fog' that permeates Darwin's theory, 140 leading biologists signed a letter distancing themselves from the 'strictly Darwin model'. Some say it is "unscholarly," "transparently wrong," and "misguided." An Evolutionary Challenge: Explaining Away Compassion, Philanthropy, and Self-Sacrifice - Denyse O'Leary - January 9, 2015 Excerpt: E. O. Wilson is widely hailed as the founder of sociobiology (circa 1975), which expounded these theories. Sociobiology later morphed into evolutionary psychology. But then Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, "The evolution of eusociality," co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation) "provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations," dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model "unscholarly," "transparently wrong," and "misguided." What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model, the gold standard of naturalism? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/an_evolutionary_1092581.html One of the primary reasons why a rigid, testable, mathematical basis for neo-Darwinism will never be formulated is because of the insistence of Darwinists for the ‘randomness postulate’ at the base of Darwin’s theory: Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf “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. also of note: Darwinists offering the 'pre-Cambrian rabbit' as a rigid falsification criteria for Darwinism in science is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian thinking is in regards to rigid science: Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge 5. Testability What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?,,, The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution. Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor. So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence. - By William A. Dembskibornagain77_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria)
Do you have a source for more discussion of this "no rigid mathematical basis" business? I know you've posted this or similar links, but I can't remember if you cited an original source for it, other than the Chaitin quote.daveS_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

What is Science? Is Intelligent Design Science? Dr. Stephen Meyer - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHawDCUyFSg Of personal note, I think Dr. Meyer is far too lenient in allowing that Darwinism may be considered a proper science. Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) 5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/editbornagain77_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply