Bill Dembski offers some thoughts on the current state of Christian apologetics

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 28, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

William A. Dembski Biography, William A. Dembski's Famous Quotes - Sualci Quotes 2019 — William Dembski

He asks, Is truth enough?: A look at the unfulfilled promise of Christian apologetics

A significant aspect of my work on intelligent design can be understood as falling under Christian apologetics, arguing that the science underlying design refutes atheism and agnosticism, and thus creates room for Christian theism. Moreover, as a professor at three seminaries, I often taught courses in apologetics, some even having that word “apologetics” in the course title. The non-apologetics courses that I taught were on the philosophy of religion, the relation between science and faith, rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking, all of which were also conducive to apologetics.
With this background, you might expect me to be an avid supporter of Christian apologetics, and so I am. But I give this talk as one who is also disappointed with the impact that apologetics has had to date and think that the discipline of apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded if it is to fulfill its promise, which is to reclaim for Christ the life of the mind (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).
I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined. What Christian apologists have accomplished in this and the last generation has been admirable and even crucially important. Except for a John Warwick Montgomery challenging the god-is-dead theology of the 1960s, except of a Norman Geisler articulating and defending biblical inerrancy, and except for subsequent vigorous challenges by Christian apologists against the nihilism, relativism, scientism, skepticism, materialism, and the other isms ravaging the intellectual world, where would we be? Fideism, with its intellectual bankruptcy, would rule the day.
William Dembski, “What makes arguments for God convincing — or not?” at Mind Matters News (November 28, 2021)

Dembski: Christian apologetics has, in my view, mainly been in the business of playing defense when it needs to be playing offense.

Note: This is a serialized reprint from Dembski’s site. You can read the whole essay at once there.

You may also wish to read: How informational realism subverts materialism Within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.

Comments

.
And I didn’t suggest that was my argument.
So you have something based on physical evidence and reason?
I do not think the design inference has been established because other plausible unguided causes have not been ruled out. And I think the other explanations are sufficient.
You have a non-intelligent source for the rise of a symbol system from dynamics? By all means, let’s hear it.Upright BiPed_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

UB, correct, hence the evasive, elephant-hurling fallacy. KFkairosfocus_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

JVL, after observing the above ‘discussion’?. I can’t help but notice your attitudes to certain developments in the aforementioned discussion seem to display a certain religious fundamentalism (fundamaterialism)?. your continued adherence to the views and personal beliefs of the practitioners within the semiotic field (rather than what the implications of the fields empirical results may be) Reminds of someone who attends church and follows the particular views or denomination of its pastors without ever having studied the bible to draw up one’s own conclusions.Bob_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

JVL, what people imagine has nothing to do with facts of observation. If you had a good case it would have been trumpeted everywhere. For some years, there were attempts, every one a failure, unsurprising given the search challenge. The current evasions and distractions we see are precisely because there are no good cases. KF PS: As for do some science, the science has been done. There are trillions of cases of FSCO/I of observed origin, all by design. The search challenge calculations have been presented many times. The best honest attempt has been as reported by Wikipedia on the infinite monkeys challenge. Here is the summary:
The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed, "VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[27] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters: RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d
A factor of 1 in 10^100 of the 500 bit lower end of the threshold.kairosfocus_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Everyone here but one is playing the other person’s game and they apparently don’t know it. If they do, then who is the fool?jerry_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: And most importantly … you know it’s a logical fallacy each time you repeat it. No, I'm pretty much 'what you see is what there is'. When asked about this double-standard, you went off on a diatribe about ID folks need to name the designer!! The discussion was more nuanced than that and if you want to rehash the whole thing I guess I will do that. But only if you promise to not bring it up over and over and over again. it is a logical fallacy to suggest the design inference is invalid because someone does not agree to it. And I didn't suggest that was my argument. YOU thought that was my argument and purpose. All I was saying was the obvious truth: the semiotic community has not supported the design hypothesis. This is true so let's just leave it at that. JVL, the only reason you use a known logical fallacy to deny the design inference, is because you know you have to … the design inference is valid. and you know it. I do not agree that the design inference hypothesis is established. I accept that it is a valid hypothesis to make and to discuss and to explore. And that's what's happening. I have NOT concluded the design hypothesis was invalid based on the semiotic community's non-support of it. I merely noted that. I do not think the design inference has been established because other plausible unguided causes have not been ruled out. And I think the other explanations are sufficient. You may want or choose to cast me into an evil or manipulative role but it's not true. That says more about your reaction to adversary than it does about me.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

.
And some people think that has been shown.
Like this gem. You knew the moment you said this that it was patently false. No one -- anywhere at anytime -- has demonstrated the rise of semiosis from dynamics.Upright BiPed_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Who introduced or created that epigenetic programming?
Who introduced or created that genetically modified food=unnatural / vaccine =unnatural process /some medicines that cure on one side and destroy on many other sides/technology with all sort of electromagnetic waves and unnatural kind of formating of brain /etc/etc?Lieutenant Commander Data_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu: In no way is the present discussion an answer to the question of the current state of Christian apologetics. Funny, I don't think anyone participating thought it was addressing that situation.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: For the record, were it shown that FSCO/I can and reliably is observed to come from blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, the design inference on FSCO/I, i.e. for the world of life, would collapse. And some people think that has been shown. So, now, are you just going to stamp your feet and insist you are right or are you going to do some science, find some data, to uphold your case?JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, it seems you are just willy nilly throwing whatever you can at to the wall to see if it sticks. I'm surprised and dismayed that you think that being more specific about which mutations are directed and which are deleterious is such a trivial matter. I guess you just don't care about the ramifications of your statements and beliefs. Which is weird because you always love to hold 'materialists'' feet to the fire. I guess you're much more heat averse. So be it. I won't beat a dead horse.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

.
I don’t think it is false, that’s why I say what I say.
The reasoning you give is a logical fallacy. And most importantly … you know it’s a logical fallacy each time you repeat it.
I take responsibility for my choices.
You do? Do you remember this double-standard fallacy?
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.
When asked about this double-standard, you went off on a diatribe about ID folks need to name the designer!! When I asked you 'who is the designer' of your ‘signal from space’ ... do you remember how you answered it? Suddenly you figured out that you could not answer that question without clearly demonstrating the double standard you put in place … but did you “take responsibility” for it? No, instead you answered “There isn’t one”. (thud) That’s right JVL, you were willing to say or do anything but “take responsibility” --- including going into full-tilt incoherence and making a fool out of yourself. And just to make the point crystal clear: Will you take responsibility for this fallacy now? No, of course not. You have no intension of doing that, and never have had.
I reported what I think the semiotic researchers think and you tried to blame me for that.
I haven’t blamed you, JVL (that doesn’t even make sense). I reminded you that -- like your use of ad hoc double-standards – it is a logical fallacy to suggest the design inference is invalid because someone does not agree to it. (JVL, the only reason you use a known logical fallacy to deny the design inference, is because you know you have to ... the design inference is valid. and you know it.)Upright BiPed_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

In no way is the present discussion an answer to the question of the current state of Christian apologetics. The state of Christian apologetics, is a bunch of crap. The first thing for apologetics, is to acknowledge the subjective part of reality, and there is just universal failure among Christans to acknowledge it. It is certainly possible that Christians will once again support natural selection as God's law, as they did during the holocaust. Generally every Christian I see is clamoring for objective morality, and what is more objective than natural selection? Social darwinism is poised to rule. Certainly if the holocaust had not occurred yet, all the Christians would now support social darwinism, because of their insistence on objective morality. What is the difference still between a Christian and an atheist? They are currently both fact obsessed people, completely clueless about the subjective part of reality. Especially also the supporters of intelligent design theory are inclined to be clueless about the subjective part of reality. There is no acknowledgement of love as being both real, and subjective. Which means that love is made objective, measurable, calculating. People with such beliefs, it can only turn out to be a total catastrophy. The morality of ordinary people in society is getting to be a total joke because of throwing out subjective love, emotions. As always, the solution is the creationist conceptual scheme, to validate both the subjective and objecte parts of reality, in the 2 fundamental categories of creator and creation. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / factmohammadnursyamsu_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

JVL, I see your turnabout projection attempt:
You too could be accused of having an ideological commitment to an a priori notion which begs huge questions that you studiously avoid addressing.
I raise you, one cat out of the bag moment that you know has been on major public record for over twenty years:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
In short, you know just why there is a problem on record, but chose to try to use a rhetorical stunt of distraction. For the record, were it shown that FSCO/I can and reliably is observed to come from blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, the design inference on FSCO/I, i.e. for the world of life, would collapse. The reality is, that is not any more likely than the creation of a perpetuum mobile. And were such a machine credibly demonstrated, thermodynamics -- a closely related point of view, BTW -- would collapse. In short, you resorted to empty rhetoric that ends up showing the opposite of what it set out to do. KF PS: This is a general audience blog, which needs to sustain a family friendly atmosphere. There is also no need for it to be perpetually dragged into distractions and worse. PPS: While arguments can be made for incremental, limited improvements via hill climbing, the real problem is to find OoL and to bridge onward to major body plans, where the former requires ~ 100 - 1,000 k of genetic information and the latter ~10 - 100+ million bits of information by blind chance and mechanical necessity. In short, climbing a hill on an isolated island is one thing, crossing the seas at random to reach to the island without clues as to warmer/colder is entirely another. It is easy to show that the latter is well beyond the blind search capability of our solar system or observed cosmos. The only observed cosmos.kairosfocus_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Whatever JVL, it seems you are just willy nilly throwing whatever you can at to the wall to see if it sticks. i.e. you've got nothing but empty rhetoric, and no empirical evidence, to try to save your precious Darwinism from empirical falsification. Yet, the empirical evidence itself could care less that your precious theory is falsified. I am out of here.
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman Teaches You The Scientific Method https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/
bornagain77_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Notice, contrary to what JVL erroneously claimed, that I am not claiming that God is directing the mutations to the DNA (it could very well, as Johnnyb pointed out, be ‘epigenetic programming’ directing the mutations to DNA), nor am I claiming that ALL mutations to DNA are directed, (nor am I even claiming that ‘directed’ mutations to DNA are ‘building information’), I am merely claiming that it is now an empirically established fact that the vast majority of mutations are directed, not random. Who introduced or created that epigenetic programming? Again, a vast majority of mutations are directed and most of them are deleterious. That is what you believe. So, someone is deciding that most mutations are deleterious. That directly follows from your statements. And what does God have to do with it? You brought it up, not me.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu: Spontaneous abortions aren’t generally due to deleterious mutations. You are just fantasizing whatever now. What do you think they are due to then?JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

JVL states, "You said ‘the vast majority’ were directed. If one-quarter to one-third of human gestations end up in spontaneous abortions (probably due to deleterious mutations) then it can’t be that a ‘vast majority’ are directed UNLESS most of all those spontaneous abortions were directed. Do you think they were?" JVL is (purposely) confusing his (faulty) theologically based argument that God would not allow spontaneous abortions with the now empirically established fact that the vast majority of mutation are found to be directed, not random.
A Tour Of Directed Mutations -November 23, 2021 - johnnyb - video https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-tour-of-directed-mutations/ WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it. On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern. http://edge.org/response-detail/25264
Notice, contrary to what JVL erroneously claimed via 'spontaneous abortions', that I am not claiming that God is directing the mutations to the DNA (it could very well, as Johnnyb pointed out, be 'epigenetic programming' directing the mutations to DNA), nor am I claiming that ALL mutations to DNA are directed, (nor am I even claiming that 'directed' mutations to DNA are not deleterious in and of themselves as JVL erroneously presupposed), I am merely claiming that it is now an empirically established fact that the vast majority of mutations are found to be directed, not random. And it is that empirical finding, in and of itself, and all by its lonesome, that falsifies a primary, and core, presupposition of Darwin's theory.bornagain77_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Spontaneous abortions aren't generally due to deleterious mutations. You are just fantasizing whatever now.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Origenes: If Darwinism cannot explain “the arrival of the fittest” (biological novelties), other than by random mutations, it has failed as a theory. Dawkins has admitted that this is the case: You seem to be missing the primary paradigm. 'Darwinism' can explain the 'arrival of the fittest' (a phrase not coined by Darwin of course) via a process of selection acting upon variation. Your quote from Dr Dawkins is taken vastly out of context. He is saying: it's not just randomness that drives evolution, it's selection, most importantly cumulative selection acting upon heritable variation. You accuse me of ending my quotations early, you've left off a whole long, involved series of points and arguments for the power of cumulative selection based on random variation. Again, you need both. You clearly are trying to 'take down' unguided evolution by insisting on emphasising only one aspect over another. But that's not how it works and, more importantly, that's not what unguided evolutionary theory says. If you really want to have a scientific discussion then please present the views you disagree with completely instead of just quote-mining things that support your a priori view.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

JVLK @157 If Darwinism cannot explain "the arrival of the fittest" (biological novelties), other than by random mutations, it has failed as a theory. Dawkins has admitted that this is the case:
Dawkins: It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living — flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive. (1987, p. 9)
Origenes_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Because they are correct. Why did you stop reading after the sentence you quote? In the remainder of my post I make clear that——contrary to what Dawkins want you to believe——, the nonrandomness of natural selection has no impact on what is crucial, namely finding biological novelties. I did read that and I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the phrase 'biological novelties', i.e. new genomes arrived at by random mutations. If that's not what you meant then I apologise. The arrival of biological novelties is via random mutations, their survival is based on non-random selection. You need both so, therefore, unguided evolution is not, primarily, random. Without the mutations you can't get evolution, without selection you can't get evolution. Just choosing to focus on the first half and declaring the whole process is basically random is incorrect but a lot of commenters here say things like that. Think of it like raising a child. Their genetics will dictate or at least heavily influence some aspects of their development. But their upbringing is also crucial and important. You can't say it's primarily nature or it's primarily nurture. It's both. One comes first but they both count. AND, selection helps determine which mutations will be carried on. In some sense, selection is more important than variation. Genetic variation is chaotic, unfocused; selection is focused and unchaotic. Selection moves evolution forward.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

JVL:
O: To Darwin’s credit, the winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom.

JVL: Why is it that you NEVER call out fellow ID supporters when then make mistaken statements about unguided evolutionary theory?
Because they are correct. Why did you stop reading after the sentence you quote? In the remainder of my post I make clear that——contrary to what Dawkins want you to believe——, the nonrandomness of natural selection has no impact on what is crucial, namely finding biological novelties. Am I being unclear here?
O: To Darwin’s credit, the winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom. However, as scientists have recognized for more than a century, the insurmountable problem for Darwinism is that the non-randomness of natural selection only helps with the “survival” not the “arrival” of biological novelties.
Hugo de Vries: “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”Origenes_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: So you appeal to deleterious mutations to try to prove that mutations must be random? You said 'the vast majority' were directed. If one-quarter to one-third of human gestations end up in spontaneous abortions (probably due to deleterious mutations) then it can't be that a 'vast majority' are directed UNLESS most of all those spontaneous abortions were directed. Do you think they were? You do realize the fact that the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations falsifies Darwinian evolution in and of itself do you not? Or has that little detail escaped your notice? Are you, then, saying that most mutations are deleterious and therefore NOT directed? Is that what you are saying? You'd better make up your mind: are most mutations directed or deleterious? OR are most of the deleterious ones directed I suppose. By some very nasty and awful director. If I add your statements together you think 'the vast majority of mutations are directed' and are deleterious. I wonder who would be directing a vast number of deleterious mutations? That is a very good question and tells me what you think the designer behind intelligent design is like.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

So you appeal to deleterious mutations to try to prove that mutations must be random? :) You do realize the fact that the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations falsifies Darwinian evolution in and of itself do you not? Or has that little detail escaped your notice?
4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734438
bornagain77_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: 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’. Sadly, Dr James Shapiro and Dr Cornelius Hunter have yet to get acceptance of their ideas from the vast majority of working biologists. Nor have they published their ideas in peer-reviewed journals. In other words: the notion that "the vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random" is an unverified hypothesis. The mutation rate being adaptive refers to THE RATE not the location or nature of the mutation. Of course there are adaptive mutations, that is the whole point!! And if the rate of mutations is higher then the rate of adaptive mutations will also be higher. Also, I would ask you: why do you think one-quarter to one-third of all human gestations end up as spontaneous abortions? Why do you think there are so many deleterious human diseases like polio, malaria, ebola, COVID, measles, mumps, rubella, strep, leprosy, etc, etc, etc? Were the mutations that brought those about directed? Were pathogens in general planned? For what purpose? Instead of just trawling the internet for statements that support your view you really should read all the work and research that applies. That's how science works, you don't pick and choose which research to believe in.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

JVL: "Mutations are random (with respect to fitness);" yet another false claim. 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’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734315 Since mutations to DNA are now known, in the vast majority of instance, to not be truly random, Darwinists will often respond to this (very) inconvenient falsification of a core presupposition of their theory by claiming that mutations are only held to be random with regard to fitness, i.e. to the needs of the individual, (as if that claim gets them out of the severe jam they have with this core falsification to their theory), but even their claim that mutations are only held to be random with regard to fitness, i.e. to the needs of the individual, is now known to be a false claim in and of itself.
(False) Prediction of Darwinism – Mutations are not adaptive – Cornelius Hunter In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36) Or as Jacques Monod explained: “chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.” (Monod, 112) Ronald Fisher wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) But that assumption is now known to be false. The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright) The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive
bornagain77_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, in case you did not realize it, empirical evidence has the final say in science. i.e. empirical evidence now demonstrates biological life is NOT NEARLY as random in its foundational essence as Darwinian materialists have falsely presupposed: Mutations are random (with respect to fitness); selection OF ANY KIND is NOT random. If you think mutations are guided or programmed then it's up to you to establish that hypothesis.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

JVL, in case you did not realize it, empirical evidence, not rhetoric, has the final say in science.
"Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Richard Feynman Teaches You The Scientific Method https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/
i.e. empirical evidence now demonstrates biological life is NOT NEARLY as random in its foundational essence as Darwinian Materialists have falsely presupposed:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
bornagain77_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: But they do point to the root problem, ideological commitment to a priori evolutionary materialism imposed on science and begging huge questions. You too could be accused of having an ideological commitment to an a priori notion which begs huge questions that you studiously avoid addressing. Sometimes you won't even use certain words to describe your beliefs as if the words themselves somehow convey a touch of evil.JVL_{December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply