Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Does Darwin’s theory of evolution address the origin of life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In reply to “UD Pro-Darwinism Essay Challenge, Elizabeth Liddle writes:

KF: there is a simple misunderstanding here. In Darwin’s words:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

In other words, Darwin, and indeed modern evolutionary theory is about descent from “few forms or one”.

It is NOT about the origins of those “few forms or one”.

If you want to uses the tree analogy, it accounts for the trunk to the twigs; it does not account for the origin of the trunk.

Liddle is correct on a basic point: Darwin’s theory proposed to explain transformations of species, not origin of life. That said, most Darwinians have hoped to extend the scope of the theory to encompass prebiotic “evolution” – and they routinely do.

No surprise, because their alternatives are grim: Space aliens, God, or non-Darwinian evolution theories – all of which they minimize or reject because every competitive possibility detracts from their rule. That is the actual reason Darwin in the schools lobbies don’t want competing naturalistic possibilities taught. Such possibilities force an evaluation of the strength of the argument for natural selection as the driver in each and every single case instead of just equating Darwin’s theory with evolution generally. Which is, of course, what they want and need to do.

Darwinism can succeed only as a totalistic system. Of course natural selection does not create complex new organs in life forms in reality. But if all other possibilities are removed, it remains, as Richard Dawkins said back in 1993, the only possibility. And therefore, you see, it or something like it must be true.

I experienced much confusion in these matters until I finally understood that aspect of the struggle. Darwin’s followers will at one and the same time say their theory does not cover OOL and tout with approval papers about chemical prebiotic evolution along Darwinian lines with no inner sense of contradiction. Because their system is totalistic, they do not experience any contradiction, merely an awareness of territory they have not yet claimed.

Comments
EL: I never said that you were saying the specific claim equating logic to science. I had a particular book in mind. As to science and truth, if science abandons truth seeking it becomes ideology. And scientism is the root of a lot of the attitude that is reflected in Sagan, Lewontin, Dawkins and commentary at TSZ. Its radical incoherence needs to be faced. KF KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
On the other hand, Lizzie, just because neither you nor I are 'scientistic' doesn't mean that scientism isn't a real thing with various pernicious effects. Getting back on track,I'm still not convinced that "materoalism or teleology?" is a genuine (as opposed to false) dichotomy, because self-organization theory isn't "materialistic" (= Epicurean), as that term is used in these contexts.Kantian Naturalist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
KF, with respect, I think that the assumption you assume is not always warranted! I certainly do not use "scientific" to stand in for "logical" or "reasonable", although to be good science, science needs to be both. But science is not the only domain of the logical nor reasonable, nor is it the "only begetter of truth" IMO. In fact, I'd say that science doesn't tell you the truth at all. All it does is present a provisional model of the world that predicts data better than some alternative model. I think a lot of misunderstandings arise from thinking that science does any more than this. Of course this itself is huge, and has enabled to do the most extraordinary things, including the exploration of other planets and communicate between the UK and Monserrat, but there is more to heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your science classes.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
PS: And back on main topic, the abiogenisis account is still the root of the darwinist tree of life. It is inevitably organically connected to it though not strictly a part of the specific theory. Hence the routine coupling of the two in textbooks for decades, and of course in museums. From my view point, it also forces us to address the actual source of hoped for variation in the scheme of thought, blind chance variations not purposefully connected to a goal. In OOL, differential reproductive success is off the table, as the origin of reproduction and self replication using coded info is part of what is to be explained.kairosfocus
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
KN: Lewontin is rather clear on representing the views of the sci elites of the Sagan circle. Similar views are found far and wide and are acted upon, through damaging or destructive partyline games. You may have exotic views but the Lewontin summary is all too tellingly familiar and recognisable. EL: I find that scientism is too often the underlying assumption. Indeed I have seen "scientific" standing in for "logical" or "reasonable." More important in some ways is an associated arrogance of the if you differ with us you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. This happens to be the attitude in the inescapably irrational and tyrannical theocratic enemies of humanity slander fest thread you host and have tried to justify. KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
I certainly do not make that argument, and I don’t think KN is either.
Definitely not! I would have thought it would be obvious by now, since I've stated on numerous occasions that I think that the normative is real and irreducible to the natural, and that I take seriously the a priori/a posteriori (and analytic/synthetic) distinction, which would (I presume) be inconsistent with holding that science is the arbiter of all truth. Wilfrid Sellars has a fairly weak form of scientism which he expresses as "in the dimension of describing and explaining the world, science is the measure of all things". Most readers of Sellars fail to notice that it is crucial to Sellars that there are more 'dimensions' of human thought, discourse, and experience than that of 'describing and explaining the world'. For example, there is the moral dimension, which is the dimension of saying what ought to be, rather than that of saying what is. I would endorse a slightly weaker form of Sellars' scientia measura, along the lines of
all models of causal regularities should be supported by highly-constrained observations to the degree that is technologically feasible
Lizzie, please feel to comment on that -- I'm not 100% sure it works. But I do agree with Kairosfocus that Sagan endorsed a much stronger view of scientism than I do, and then the question would be whether Lewontin endorses Sagan's view or is just expressing it.Kantian Naturalist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
No, you are reading more into my words than is there, KF. I asked who you thought was making that argument. It seems you think that Lewontin and Sagan were. But no-one actually in this thread. I certainly do not make that argument, and I don't think KN is either.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, I have read Lewontin's review, with and without your exegesis of it. I'm not accusing you of quote-mining; I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation.
Who is making the argument that science is the only begetter of truth, kairosfocus?
Sagan, almost certainly, for one. Sagan was, I think it's fair to say, a staunch advocate of "scientism." The question is whether Lewontin endorses scientism in his review of Sagan's book. I don't think he does, because all that gets put forth as a pragmatic a priori is the impossibility of radical occasionalism (as I'm calling it). And while this is not, I think it's fair to say, a theologically attractive option, I have heard similar views expressed by my theologically unsophisticated but deeply religious students. For another thing, even if Lewontin endorses 'scientism' in his review of Sagan's book, I know that 'scientism' is not Lewontin's considered view, because I've read two of his books: The Dialectical Biologist and Biology as Ideology. In both books Lewontin is crystal-clear that science is influenced by social and political needs and assumptions, and I have trouble seeing how that approach is consistent with "scientism," as Kairosfocus and others here use the term.Kantian Naturalist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
EL, you full well know that this is a direct in-context citation from Lewontin in a well known article of Jan 1997 in NYRB on Billions and Billions of Demons, itself echoing Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World the book being reviewed, in a context where he speaks for a major faction of elite scientists including Sagan. The implied approach to knowledge, scientism, is a commonplace, and is utterly self refuting. The implication of your words and tone is that I am lying or willfully misrepresenting the facts. This is improper, given that you yourself must long since know the opposite to be true. KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
Who is making the argument that science is the only begetter of truth, kairosfocus?Elizabeth B Liddle
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
PS: It is also just a little too rich that an argument that wants us to believe that science is the only begetter of truth should want to appeal to a philosophical assertion by a philosopher.kairosfocus
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
KN, Kindly don't try that one -- a slightly subtle version of the quote-mining accusation tactic -- on me. First, the remarks do stand in their own right and patently reduce to absurdity, from the declaration that hoi polloi should come to see science as the only begetter of truth, to the smugly dismissive hostility to theism, to the triumphalistic question-begging to the admission that evidence does not compel to the declaration that materialism is a priori. None of these can be justified on any reasonable grounds, period. And, did you actually take time to read the extended clip with notes, which addresses Beck TWICE? If you did, you will see a response to Beck's silly talking point that a creator God would render the world chaotic:
. . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us 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. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [[--> Perhaps the second saddest thing is that some actually believe that these last three sentences that express hostility to God and then back it up with a loaded strawman caricature of theism and theists JUSTIFY what has gone on before. As a first correction, accurate history -- as opposed to the commonly promoted rationalist myth of the longstanding war of religion against science -- documents (cf. here, here and here) that the Judaeo-Christian worldview nurtured and gave crucial impetus to the rise of modern science through its view that God as creator made and sustains an orderly world. Similarly, for miracles -- e.g. the resurrection of Jesus -- to stand out as signs pointing beyond the ordinary course of the world, there must first be such an ordinary course, one plainly amenable to scientific study. The saddest thing is that many are now so blinded and hostile that, having been corrected, they will STILL think that this justifies the above. But, nothing can excuse the imposition of a priori materialist censorship on science, which distorts its ability to seek the empirically warranted truth about our world.] [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis and notes added. ___________
F/N: The key part of this quote comes after some fairly unfortunate remarks where Mr Lewontin gives the "typical" example -- yes, we can spot a subtext -- of an ill-informed woman who dismissed the Moon landings on the grounds that she could not pick up Dallas on her TV, much less the Moon. This is little more than a subtle appeal to the ill-tempered sneer at those who dissent from the evolutionary materialist "consensus," that they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. For telling counter-instance, Wernher von Braun, the designer of the rocket that took NASA to the Moon, was an evangelical Christian and a Creationist. [[Cf also here, here, here, here, here.] Similarly, when Lewontin cites "eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck" as declaring that "anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything," drawing as bottom-line, the inference that "[[t]o appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen," this is a sadly sophomoric distortion. One that fails to understand that, on the Judaeo-Christian theistic view, for miracles to stand out as signs pointing beyond the ordinary, there must first be an ordinary consistently orderly world, one created by the God of order who "sustains all things by his powerful word." Also, for us to be morally accountable to God -- a major theme in theism, the consequences of our actions must be reasonably predictable, i.e. we must live in a consistent, predictably orderly cosmos, one that would be amenable to science. And, historically, it was specifically that theistic confidence in an orderly cosmos governed by a wise and orderly Creator that gave modern science much of its starting impetus from about 1200 to 1700. For instance that is why Newton (a biblical theist), in the General Scholium to his famous work Principia, confidently said:
"[[t]his most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being . . . It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [[--> i.e. he accepts the cosmological argument to God] . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [[ --> i.e from his designs] . . . Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [[--> i.e. necessity does not produce contingency]. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [[--> That is, he implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.]"
In such a context of order stamped in at creation and sustained through God's power, for good reason, God may then act into the world in ways that go beyond the ordinary, i.e. miracles are possible but will inevitably be rare and in a context that points to such a higher purpose. For instance, the chief miracle claim of Christian thought, the resurrection of Jesus with 500+ witnesses is presented in the NT as decisive evidence for the truth of the gospel and authentication of God's plan of redemption. So, since these contextual remarks have been repeatedly cited by objectors as though they prove the above cite is an out of context distortion that improperly makes Lewontin seem irrational in his claims, they have to be mentioned, and addressed, as some seem to believe that such a disreputable "context" justifies the assertions and attitudes above!)]
Mr Lewontin and a great many other leading scientists and other influential people in our time clearly think that such evolutionary materialist scientism is the closest thing to the "obvious" truth about our world we have or can get. This has now reached to the point where some want to use adherence to this view as a criterion of being “scientific,” which to such minds is equivalent to “rational.”
In short Beck either did not know what he was talking about -- certainly in regard to the historic Judaeo-Christian worldview [notice my strict limitation -- there are possible unbalanced views of God that are prone to arbitrariness . . . ], which emphasises that God is the wise, reasonable active agent originating and sustaining the order and operation of the cosmos as a fit habitation for life including our own, and that God is a God of reasonable and responsible order, who therefore upholds the ordinary course of the world while reserving the right for good reasons of his own to act beyond that course through signs and wonders -- or he played a strawman tactic that he knew would go over well with his intended audience. KFkairosfocus
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
His appeal to Lewis White Beck makes it fairly clear that Lewontin’s a priori commitment is to the existence of regularities in the natural world.
Anyone disputing regularities? Anyone? Aren't these regularities what Aquinas used to demonstrate the existence of God?
What they would object to, a priori, is any theism according to which we could never know, for any particular event, whether it was the result of natural regularities or divine intervention.
What's the difference and how could we possibly tell? http://www.ghazali.org/ For what it's worth I have his The Incoherence of the Philosophers There is currently a series being published: http://meti.byu.edu/islamic.phpMung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
I know you're fond of quoting Lewontin, but I don't think you understand him correctly. His appeal to Lewis White Beck makes it fairly clear that Lewontin's a priori commitment is to the existence of regularities in the natural world. (Accordingly, any theism that accounts for those regularities would get no objection from Beck or Lewontin.) What they would object to, a priori, is any theism according to which we could never know, for any particular event, whether it was the result of natural regularities or divine intervention. And while that is not the theism that anyone here takes seriously, it is not without precedent. It is my understanding (from various second-hand sources) that the Muslim philosopher al-Ghazzali argued for that kind of occasionalism, and his doing so had a seriously detrimental effect on Muslim science. (We can call this 'radical occasionalism,' to distinguish it from Malebranche.) As I read it, what Lewontin is saying here (citing Beck) is just this: in doing science at all in the first place, we are a priori, implicitly committing ourselves to the assertion that radical occasionalism is false.Kantian Naturalist
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
EL, you full well know I am quotinf Lewontin speaking of Sagan and the majority of elite scientists, cf here. If you read on down from there you will see several further ones including the US NAS and NSTA. This is no strawman opponent, as you obviously want to pretend in the teeth of years of being presented with cases in point. And it further seems to me that your evolutionary materialism inescapably faces the is-ought gap such that it has no adequate foundation for the binding nature of ought, such as is required for rights, justice and genuine, well grounded concerns over moral issues. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
"All the huffing, puffing, slipping, sliding, evading, poison the atmosphere and shoot the messenger tactics that are so drearily familiar from both the Darwinist fever swamps and their front operations with genteel face cards — cf. the recent rebuke to TSZ here" It Should be renamed the pseudo skeptical zone.mrchristo
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: Can you explain briefly but precisely what you mean by "a priori materialism"?Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
You understand, don’t you, that a copy is not the same as the original, and neither is a replica. If all that’s required for Darwinian evolution is making copies or replicas of something it would seem to include far more than living organisms, wouldn’t you agree.
Yes. Which is why we can use Darwinian evolution so successfully in silico.
Elizabeth Liddle: Yes, indeed. An evolutionary algorithm generates a series of virtual organisms that spawn copies, with variation, of themselves. My point exactly. Darwnism does not require self-replicators. The very idea of a “self-replicator” is nonsense anyways.
No, it isn't nonsense, and yes Darwinism requires self-replicators, by which I mean, as I said, something that spawns copies of itself, which need not be veridical.
And since life is not required for Darwinism, it’s possible to say all sorts of things that can be described as “Darwinian” while also claiming that it has nothing to do with OOL.
Yes. But you still need a starting population of self-replicators so you cannot explain the origin of those self-replicators by Darwinian mechanisms.
But it clearly does, because all someone has to do is imagine some copying process and then they think they all of a sudden have a path to life, which is just silly.
Well, you have to do more than just "imagine" it, Mung. It needs to be physically plausible or implement-able.
Do you believe it’s possible to have a population with one member?
A self-replicator will result in a population of more than one, unless it doesn't self-replicate, in which case it won't be a self-replicator.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
F/N: This thread needs to simply address the points that (a) evolutionary materialism is commonly taught (e.g. in HS and College textbooks) in a context where both OOL per blind watchmaker abiogenesis and the usual accounts of chance variation and differential reproductive success cumulatively accounting for origin of body plans are presented in a context of being beyond reasonable dispute [save over "how" details], and (b) OOL is the ROOT of the darwinist tree of life. In both cases, the matter to be accounted for is origin of FSCO/I without design, and until/unless this is soundly shown feasible on observation the whole structure is based on a speculative ideologically loaded metaphysical hypothesis of Lewontin-Sagan-Dawkins-NAS-NSTA etc a priori materialism, however disguised. Ideology, not science. The straightforward induction, by contrast, runs much as Meyer recently summarised in answer to dismissive critiques of his 2009 Signature in the Cell. Clipping:
[I]ntelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . . . [[W]e now have a wealth of experience showing that what I call specified or functional information (especially if encoded in digital form) does not arise from purely physical or chemical antecedents [[--> i.e. by blind, undirected forces of chance and necessity]. Indeed, the ribozyme engineering and pre-biotic simulation experiments that Professor Falk commends to my attention actually lend additional inductive support to this generalization. On the other hand, we do know of a cause—a type of cause—that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. That cause is intelligence or conscious rational deliberation. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information . . .
Meyer is dead on target. All the huffing, puffing, slipping, sliding, evading, poison the atmosphere and shoot the messenger tactics that are so drearily familiar from both the Darwinist fever swamps and their front operations with genteel face cards -- cf. the recent rebuke to TSZ here, will make no difference to this. That is why in the end, after a full year, we have yet to see a complelling answer to the challenge for darwinists to empirically and adequately ground the very first icon of evolution, the tree of life -- cf. what could be dragged out after a full year of tugging, here, not exactly a sign of people in full and confident command of the facts and logic of an important matter. (Let us not forget, it appears -- rootless -- in an 1837 notebook by Darwin and as the ONLY illustration -- rootless again -- in his Origin of Species.) Design sits at the table as of right, from the root of the tree of life, and once it cannot be censored out, common design makes a much better explanation for what we see than the common descent plus a lot of systematically and overwhelmingly missing links that we find. This, after 150 years, 1/4+ million fossil species identified, millions of fossils in museums and billions more in the ground spelling the same story. The exclusion of design from consideration is blatantly ideological, as has been repeatedly acknowledged. Indeed, there has been a major attempt to build that ideology into the very definition of science. The admission above that science is not about truth is an indirect admission of the effects. In fact, unless science seeks and is accountable before truth, it loses all credibility, especially on matters like origins where it cannot be directly empirically cross checked against facts. Oops, there has been an attempt to ideologically redefine "facts" too. See the point? Ideological, a priori materialistic "science" is in essence the ideology of scientism, which is self refuting. Materialism is also self-refuting. (If you doubt me, have a look here and here.) Game over. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
So you are saying that if a photocopy isn’t identical to the original it isn’t a replication of the original? I don’t think so. If a replica need not be identical in all respects to the original, nor does a self-replication need to be identical in all respects to the self.
You understand, don't you, that a copy is not the same as the original, and neither is a replica. If all that's required for Darwinian evolution is making copies or replicas of something it would seem to include far more than living organisms, wouldn't you agree. Elizabeth Liddle:
Yes, indeed. An evolutionary algorithm generates a series of virtual organisms that spawn copies, with variation, of themselves.
My point exactly. Darwnism does not require self-replicators. The very idea of a "self-replicator" is nonsense anyways. And since life is not required for Darwinism, it's possible to say all sorts of things that can be described as "Darwinian" while also claiming that it has nothing to do with OOL. But it clearly does, because all someone has to do is imagine some copying process and then they think they all of a sudden have a path to life, which is just silly. Do you believe it's possible to have a population with one member?Mung
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Mr. Fox states,
But as you say, when doing science, we are concerned with reality, real evidence. This is what ID “science” needs. Evidence of the supernatural/reality boundary where real effects of the “Intelligent Agent” can be shown at work rather than imagined.
Although the claims of ID proper are rather modest, and testable, (in fact there is a null hypothesis for the main ID claim (which is far more than can be said for any claims of neo-Darwinism)
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 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.”,,, 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.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work
That's a pretty sharp boundary in my book! But to go further than the modest claim of ID proper and show just how vacuous neo-Darwinism, and materialism in general, is as a 'science', it is good to cite a few examples:
1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted that the basis of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. Materialism predicted that consciousness is a 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a 'special' position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 7. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9) - 8. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 9. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 10. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 11. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life 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 mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 12. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 13. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 14. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 15. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 16. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall) -
Perhaps Mr. Fox thinks that is not good enough as scientific evidence for Theism? But if not then what would ever be good enough evidence for someone who thought as such? I mean really, what could ever penetrate such a hard heart if not the preceding evidence?bornagain77
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Not just similar, identical. Otherwise it’s not “self-replication.”
So you are saying that if a photocopy isn't identical to the original it isn't a replication of the original? I don't think so. If a replica need not be identical in all respects to the original, nor does a self-replication need to be identical in all respects to the self.
Now, can you please explain what sort of “self-replication” goes on inside a computer?
Yes, indeed. An evolutionary algorithm generates a series of virtual organisms that spawn copies, with variation, of themselves. Their chances of doing so depends on factors within a virtual environment, so that those with features that most enhance the chances of breeding in that environment leave more copies (with slight variations) of themselves behind. Two publicly available examples are AVIDA and Eureqa, both of which I have used. I have also written a number myself. Eureqa is especially interesting, in my view, as you can set the virtual environment in such a way that the resulting organisms solves a problem that you want solved, for example, how to tell what treatment might be best for a particular patient, given data on that patient. I am only starting now to tap its potential, but already it has found relationships in the data that I would never have found using my own Intelligence. Evolution may be slower than people, but it is a much more thorough investigator of possibilities.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
"This is what ID “science” needs. Evidence of the supernatural/reality boundary where real effects of the “Intelligent Agent” can be shown at work rather than imagined." But Alan, don't you remember that "imagination is more important than knowledge"? :P IDists thus have a convenient 'out' whenever they want. "We only fail [or succeed] to observe their effects in current reality." At least you are leaving that 'reality' door open, if not for yourself, then for others, aren't you?Gregory
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
tjguy assks
Why do you say that Behe’s argument is simply “I just don’t think random variation can explain anything”?
Because that is as far as his argument goes. He offers no alternative hypothesis as to how the bacterium, E. coli came to possess the flagellum that it does possess. He merely argues that the reiterated ratcheting of variation and selection are insufficient to account for the flagellum.
He has real experimental scientific reasons for his conclusion. It’s more than just a feeling.
It's his point of view but it can't be supported by evidence. Dr (of evolutionary biology :) ) Nick Matzke shows numerous homologies that suggest evolutionary pathways.
But then, I can turn around and ask you the same thing. Your argument is simply “I just think random variation CAN explain everything.” I don’t see any difference whatsoever.
As a matter of fact, I don't believe or claim that. But it is beside the point. I don't accept that by refuting hypothesis A, you strengthen hypothesis B. ID first needs a coherent hypothesis, then attempts can then be made to falsify it. Until then, there is no ID to consider, let alone to assume by default.
Neither side can observe history or repeat it to see if either one is right. In some respects, it does come down to beliefs based on how we interpret the evidence. You don’t think there is a God so obviously you will say that even though we can’t explain all the details, you think it happened simply by random mutation and whatever other evolutionary process you want to throw in there. That’s fine, but there is no experimental proof or verification for this.
I'm not yet persuaded by any of the current various religious packages on offer, nor do I feel the need to make up my own. Some factual claims by various sects (Creationists would be a prime example) are obviously false (the age of the Earth, global flood, all people descendants of the first couple created by God a few thousand years ago, sons of Noah etc.) but we certainly can't disprove the idea of omniscient, omipotent omnipresent supernatural deities. We only fail to observe their effects in current reality. But as you say, when doing science, we are concerned with reality, real evidence. This is what ID "science" needs. Evidence of the supernatural/reality boundary where real effects of the "Intelligent Agent" can be shown at work rather than imagined.Alan Fox
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
tjguy assks
Why do you say that Behe’s argument is simply “I just don’t think random variation can explain anything”?
Because that is as far as his argument goes. He offers no alternative hypothesis as to how the bacterium, E. coli came to possess the flagellum that it does possess. He merely argues that the reiterated ratcheting of variation and selection are insufficient to account for the flagellum.
He has real experimental scientific reasons for his conclusion. It’s more than just a feeling.
It's his point of view but it can't be supported by evidence. Dr (of evolutionary biology :) ) Nick Matzke shows numerous homologies that suggest evolutionary pathways.
But then, I can turn around and ask you the same thing. Your argument is simply “I just think random variation CAN explain everything.” I don’t see any difference whatsoever.
As a matter of fact, I don't believe or claim that. But it is beside the point. I don't accept that by refuting hypothesis A, you strengthen hypothesis B. ID first needs a coherent hypothesis, then attempts can then be made to falsify it. Until then, there is no ID to consider, let alone to assume by default.
Neither side can observe history or repeat it to see if either one is right. In some respects, it does come down to beliefs based on how we interpret the evidence. You don’t think there is a God so obviously you will say that even though we can’t explain all the details, you think it happened simply by random mutation and whatever other evolutionary process you want to throw in there. That’s fine, but there is no experimental proof or verification for this.
I'm not yet persuaded by any of the current various religious packages on offer, nor do I feel the need to make up my own. Some factual claims by various sects (Creationists would be a prime example) are obviously false (the age of the Earth, global flood, all people descendants of the first couple created by God a few thousand years ago, sons of Noah etc.) but we certainly can't disprove the idea of omniscient, omipotent omnipresent supernatural deities. We only fail to observe their effects in current reality. But as you say, when doing science, we are concerned with reality, real evidence. This is what ID "science" needs. Evidence of the supernatural/reality boundary where real effects of the "Intelligent Agent" can be shown at work rather than imagined.Alan Fox
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Back to the OOL, assuming Elizabeth isn't ignoring me. :0 Elizabeth Liddle:
A self-replicator is something that replicates itself, duh. So where there was one thing, you now have two similar things.
Not just similar, identical. Otherwise it's not "self-replication." Now, can you please explain what sort of "self-replication" goes on inside a computer? As an aside, but of potential relevance, do you consider cloning to be self-replication?
A self-replicator is something that replicates itself, duh. So where there was one thing, you now have two similar things.
Has it occurred to you that "self-replication" is logically impossible?Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Or, more to the point, before you attempt to critique a theory you simply do not appear to understand.
Well, I've debated with myself over whether it would just be a pure waste of my time to provide quotes from sources to substantiate what I say, but I never see you doing that. I just see you tossing off remarks willy-nilly that you seem to be expect to be taken as truth. If you don't like it that I respond in kind I can surely understand, but you might want to reconsider your own approach then, because I am merely reflecting your own debating style, with the difference being that I have the facts on my side. Now, I won't go so far as to say you are immune from the facts, your recent acknowledgement that you were wrong about Meyer is a case in point. So what does it take to get through to you? It's obviously possible to do so. Just extremely rare :) You have to admit that I was right about Meyer. So what on earth makes you think I don't do my homework? Do you think I only read books bu Meyer and Dembski and Wells? "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." So instead of ignoring me, why not dig deeper? My posts usually have a point, despite what Salvador thinks. What was it in my post that you are responding to did you think so far wrong, and why? Here's what I said: "Descent with modification was Darwin’s explanation." This is absolutely true. He proposed two theories to explain the facts as he saw them. The theory of Common Descent. And the theory of Natural Selection. So are you disputing that, or was it something else that I said that is so wrong? And if that's true, then it was something else that must be "that which was to be explained." That follows logically, does it not? And it it's true, then you are wrong, and it is you who either do not understand or do not make a difference where one exists. It's really simple, from my pov.Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Closer to that second thing, I'd say, if we were being picky. We can speculate that the reason one model fits the data better than another is because it is a closer representation of reality, but that is, as you say, speculation. All we are actually saying is that this model fits the data better than that one. Or that this model fits this range of data better, and that model fits that range of data, but we don't yet know how the two models fit together (e.g. Relativity and QM).Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Lizzie, I appreciate what you're saying here. Knowing your interest in certain philosophical matters, I bring to your attention a long-running debate within philosophy of science between "scientific realism" and "scientific anti-realism" (also, confusingly, called "empiricism" by its supporters). Here's the issue: when we say, for any two theories T1 and T2
T1 yields more accurate predictions of future data than T2, has fewer anomalies, etc. (whatever the epistemic desiderata are).
should we say
T1 yields more accurate predictions of future data than T2, has fewer anomalies, etc. because T1 is a better depiction of reality than T2.
or is the because clause superfluous, adds nothing that we didn't already know, is an unforgivable lapse into metaphysical speculation that has no place in science, and so on? The "scientific realists" are the ones who endorse the second statement; their critics are the ones who reject it.Kantian Naturalist
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
What science can do, with a high degree of confidence, however, is tell you that some models are not the truth. Science tells us absolutely unambiguously, for instance, that the world is not 6,000 years old, nor made over the course of 6 days.
Elizabeth that is bogus materialistic logic. You can´t eat the cake and have it. If science can tell that something is not the truth, then it is true that that thing is not the truth, then scienci IS saying part of the truth. Your example is wrong, a model of an earth of 6000 years old fits the data worst than a model of an older earth.Chesterton
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply