In recent museum exhibit of dinosaurs, plate tectonics dominates, not Darwinism
| July 12, 2012 | Posted by O'Leary under Evolution, Intelligent Design, News |
Did we mention that scientists seem to be starting to forget Darwin, and move on to more fruitful areas” Yesterday, I was at a Royal Ontario Museum exhibit “ Ultimate Dinosaurs: Giants from Gondwana” (presented by Raymond James). The exhibit was blessedly free of inappropriate homage to Darwin, who was identified only as the developer of natural selection theory. Pride of place went to Wegener and plate tectonics – the breakup and gradual movement of the continents to their present places around the globe.
The focus was on how the breakup of Pangaea into Laurasia and Gondwana (and related developments) separated groups of dinosaurs, who thereafter went their own way developmentally, while remaining quite obviously dinosaurs.
I was impressed by the (mostly) absence of just-so stories. They would only have been in the way. The exhibit of these long lost life forms was quite absorbing enough without ideologically motivated tales. We see some evolution but we don’t necessarily know the exact cause – other than separation from others of the same species – which is the message of plate tectonics.
Some dinos you maybe didn’t meet recently.
See also “Scientists are beginning to forget Darwin, whether they admit it or not.”
50 Responses to In recent museum exhibit of dinosaurs, plate tectonics dominates, not Darwinism
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Evolutionary theory predicted that marsupial fossils would be found in Antarctica because marsupials came from South America, and S. America was connected to Australia via Antarctica. And Australidelphian marsupial fossils were found in Antarctica.
Evolutionary theory predicted that Australian marsupials would cluster with some S. American marsupials, and in fact the S. American monito del monte has the same pattern of ERVs as Australian marsupials.
Evolutionary theory can explain the biogeographic distribution of xenarthrans in S. America and australidelphians in Australia and horses in N. America.
On the other hand, an intelligent designer could put similar designs in different places, or the same places, if he wanted to, thus leading to no predictions.
It was creationists who denied plate tectonics for decades after scientists accepted Wegener’s theory. Even in the 1980′s creationists still called plate tectonics a Satanic illusion. They flip-flopped in the late 1990′s. Revised versions of the “Answers Book” flip-flopped on that.
Diogenes, why do YOU think “evolutionary theory” was de-emphasized in favour of a simple, easily understood description of plate tectonics, which emphasized the fact of separation rather than theories of the supposed mechanism of evolution thereafter?
Re similar designs in different places, that is called convergent evolution, is it not? The accumulation of examples of convergent evolution will likely permit some predictions. That is, we will learn something from solutions that are arrived at by different paths, as opposed to solutions rarely attempted.
Now I see your logic.
If scientists don’t describe in detail the evidence that supports evolution, there is no evidence for evolution.
If scientists do describe evidence for evolution, they’re ramming their atheist religion down our throats.
If scientists tentatively describe the evidence for evolution, they don’t really believe their own theory.
Come on; you know that if transitional fossils were marked with a red tag “Evidence for Darwinism!” you would call it materialist indoctrination.
As for your local museum, I haven’t been there. I don’t know what’s up there.
I don’t know what you mean by “fact of separation.” Separation of continents? Separation of what from what?
I used to go to the Yale Peabody a lot. They had nice displays on the horse series and the hominid series. But there were about 10 other fossils in there that I know to be transitional, that were not marked with a red tag “transitional.” Should they be? Dunno, that’s an artistic decision.
I saw another exhibition on the hominid series, if I recall, it was The Philadelphia Art Museum.
The Franklin Institute recently had a nice exhibition on feathered dinosaurs.
The Institute of Natural History (of Drexel U) has some transitionals but not well-marked. Nice fossils, but captions not so informative.
If by evolution you mean the sorting of genes into subspecies, and their radiation across the earth over time, none of that is incompatible with Intelligent Design. But even then, its not as if any body actually predicted any of those things using “evolutionary theory”, although it does provide plausible post-hoc explanations.
But Diogenes, if by evolution you mean the production of new things that look like design, by unguided mutation and natural selection, its hard to see how that theory has any bearing on biogeography …
Denyse is merely applauding the fact that this museum dropped the irrelevant junk and the over-selling of evolution that is being exhibited right here.
Also, do you have any references about the creationist stuff? A quick google suggests that John Baumgardner for one has been a major fan of plate tectonics since the 80s. Or are you just spreading random disinformation here about 3rd parties?
No, neo-Darwinists are excellent at going into detail of the evidence that they think supports evolution, the problem is that there is no actual demonstrated “empirical” evidence that actually supports the claim that undirected neo-Darwinian processes are responsible for the complexity we see in life, nor are undirected Darwinian processes responsible for the limited changes in genomes that we do see (Natural Genetic Engineering: Shapiro).
No, they, neo-Darwinists, are ‘ramming their atheist religion down our throats’ by #1 dogmatically refusing to consider any other alternative than their severely ‘quantumly’ compromised materialistic/atheistic premise for the foundation of reality, and #2 by persecuting, intimidating, and/or firing, anyone who dares question their materialistic mandate.
Actually the word “evolution” is a gloss in most research papers of molecular biology since no molecular system, or molecular machine, has ever been seen arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes. Thus, as far as hard evidence itself is concerned a conclusion for evolution can only ever, charitably, be called tentative (No matter how loudly neo-Darwinists shout down the opposition to the contrary!). If you disagree please cite direct empirical evidence of a sophisticated molecular machine or system arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes!
No you sticking the word ‘transitional’ before the word fossils is what is materialistic indoctrination. Other than you adamant claim that the fossil is transitional, you have no evidence that #1 the fossil actually is transitional and #2 even if the fossils were transitional you have no demonstrated materialistic mechanism to account for such sweeping change in body-plan morphology! As Henry Gee, editor of Nature, stated,
You then state:
And that is exactly the problem
You then state:
This following video shows just how badly ‘artistic impression’ has infected this evidence as well
Further note on the persistent pattern of misrepresentation of fossils by Darwinists
Andyjones writes:
Irrelevant junk and over-selling? On Uncommon Descent? Why, I never!
You’re kidding right? As for Australian marsupials: back to 1931, one the early advocates of continental drift was Dr. Lawrence M. Gould. He wrote
Yeah, 1931. That sure sounds post-hoc to me.
You do know that it was biogeography that inspired both Wallace and Darwin to come up with the theory in the first place, right? And that the biogeographical region “Wallacea” is named after Wallace, because he explained its absence of large Asian and Australian land mammals (with maybe the exception of one macaque)?
OK, you converted me. Let’s say “the production of new things that look like design” happens by magic or violations of the laws of physics or something.
So then why did Go– I mean the intelligent designer– not design any placentas for big mammals in Australia? Synctyin (placentally-expressed gene) is designed. The intelligent designer can’t tote those designs to Sydney?
Consider ANY common features of Australidelphian marsupials. Let’s say oh, the palatal holes, or the four molars. Why didn’t G– the intelligent designer– design some up for some European placentals? What, he can’t carry his briefcase of blueprints to Europe?
Now xenarthrans in S. America. Why did G– the intelligent designer– not design a bunch of European and Australian animals with extra articulations in their vertebral joints, like xenarthrans have? He can’t carry his briefcase of blueprints up to Europe?
No. But when N. America and S. America drift about and get connected via Panama, OK then. Suddenly opossums show up in N. America. The Panamanian isthmus can do that, but G– I mean the intelligent designer can’t do it.
Wallacea is named Wallacea, not Archbishop Whateleyea or Samuel Wilberforcea. This evidence fits a highly contrained, physically contrained, genetically contrained, geographically constrained, gradually diversifying, common ancestry. The data inspired the same theory in Darwin and Wallace.
Although there were millions of “Intelligent Design proponents” in the nineteenth century, not one of them noticed the biogeography thing.
Your Intelligent Designer can’t carry his briefcase of designs across the ocean, eh. Can’t swim? Maybe he’s dead? So when’d he die?
Andyjones writes:
Thank you for answering in a positive tone! I am glad posters at UD refrain from innuendo and gratuitous ad hominem.
So far as I know, Baumgardner did not publish his catastrophic model until 1994. I do not know of ANY creationists who were pro-plate tectonics before then. If you have specific references, I’d be grateful if you could cite them specifically.
Now I could throw a bunch of references at you, when I get time, but I’ll start with a source you might find interesting. This reviewer compares Ken Ham’s “The Answers Book” 1990 edition against the 2000 edition. According to this reviewer, the 1990 edition is strongly against plate tectonics, and the 2000 edition is for catastrophic plate tectonics.
“The Answers Book” was edited by Ken Ham drawing on many of the more prominent creatinists, and this was back before he got into his dispute with Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, etc. Presumably he must have drawn on Andrew Snelling as well.
Now BA77 would say, “Oh, that’s another biased evolutionary materialist lying and misrepresenting the facts!!!!
Um, the reviewer is signed as Dr. Stephen C. Meyers.
I’m wondering if that’s the DI’s Stephen C. Meyer. Note the change in spelling of the last name. Could one of you check that out for me? Is that your Stephen C. Meyer?
I’ll cite a bunch more references later, when I get a chance.
No I wouldn’t! I’m as upset as you are with the ‘shoe horned’ geology coming from Young Earthers (just as I am upset with Darwinists ‘shoe horning’ genetic/biological evidence!). I accept plate tectonics, just as I accept the Earth to be over 4 billion years old. In fact, along with many other parameters, plate tectonics are found to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life to exist on earth and thus are found to be very friendly to ID presuppositions.
Notes:
Since oxygen readily reacts and bonds with many of the solid elements making up the earth itself, and since the slow process of tectonic activity controls the turnover of the earth’s crust, it took photosynthetic bacteria a few billion years before the earth’s crust was saturated with enough oxygen to allow a sufficient level of oxygen to be built up in the atmosphere as to allow higher life:
The stunning long term balance of the necessary chemicals for life on the face of the earth, which is controlled at a foundational level by tectonic activity, is a wonder in and of itself:
further notes:
There are hundreds of interconnected parameters for a ‘privileged planet’ listed here:
Ugh, BA77 with his bullprob calculations. The best you can do is 10^-1333? I could beat that easily, for any natural process. Just measure a few hundred parameters, assume they’re independent and multiply them together. In this way, you can prove everything’s supernatural.
BA77, all your probabilities are irrelevant because you
1. you assume the universe is “adapted” to life, instead of considering that life is “adapted” to the universe
2. you make fallacy of independent probability, multiplying together probabilities that are not independent.
3. You make the lottery winner fallacy, computing the probability of one set of observations, instead of computing the cumulative probability of all sets of possible observations which would correspond to your causative hypothesis.
4. You’re assuming God of the Gaps– if an astronomically incorrect probability calculation gives an astronomically low number, the only possible explanation is that an invisible spirit made it happen.
A probability of 10^-1333 is easy to achieve if you multiply together 816 probabilities, each of which is itself wrong. No one can say what is the probability of (for example) Planck’s constant or the Gravitational constant have (for example) 10% higher or lower a value. No one knows what the probabilities are. Moreover, if you multiply them, you’re assuming their independent. They’re not. Under a GUT theory or TOE, they wouldn’t be independent so you couldn’t multiply together the probabilities we can’t compute.
A probability of 10^-1333 does not impress any statistician if it is computed by multiplying together 816 probabilities, each of which is itself wrong. It’s called incompetence.
And assuming God of the Gaps is invalid. You could do the same calculation on the causes of cancer, show that cancer can’t be caused by mutations. Therefore an invisible intelligence must’ve did it. Witches gave Grandpa cancer.
you state:
No, the universe gives every indication as to having been designed for life. In fact one of the first fine-tuned parameters to be discovered turned Hoyle from a ‘hard atheists’ to at least a deist, maybe a theist:
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a famed astrophysicist, is the scientist who established the nucleo-synthesis of heavier elements within stars as mathematically valid in 1946. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon, the building block of life, is synthesized in stars he stated:
Sir Fred also stated:
You object to the probability argument of calculating the necessary conditions for complex biological life to exist on a planet in this universe (actually the probability calculation is a refinement of the atheists very own ‘Drake equation’), yet on top of the highly improbable set of ‘coincidences’ that are necessary to allow life to exist on any given planet in this universe, Gonzalez and Richards, in the following video, speak of a ‘observability correlation that is very ‘suspicious’
A few videos of related ‘observability correlation’ interest;
Moreover;
These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Gonzalez; Privileged Planet, Denton; Nature’s Destiny).
further note:
This following site has a rigorously argued defense of the fine-tuning(teleological) argument:
You also try to argue that the constants are not independent but ‘emerge’ from GUT (Grand Unified Theory) or TOE (Theory of Everything) yet, as Godel pointed out decades ago, there will never be a purely mathematical theory of everything,,,
Moreover, although General Relativity is confirmed as accurate to a stunning degree as a valid description of space-time,,,
,,,And although the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments,,,
,,,None-the-less, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both shown to be ‘incomplete’. This following site, through a fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, acknowledges the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the ‘completeness’ of 4D space-time within the sphere of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from different points of observation in the universe.
Moreover, it is found that the space-time of General Relativity must somehow ‘emerge’ from the timeless and spaceless physics of quantum mechanics,,,
,,Yet General Relativity refuses to be ‘unified’ with Quantum Mechanics into a mathematical ‘theory of everything’. Thus the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is shown to be a ‘incomplete’ description of reality because of its inability to be reconciled with General Relativity. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
,,Yet, if one allows God into math as incompleteness strongly indicates we must do,,,
,,,then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a ‘Theory of Everything’ that overcomes this zero/infinity conflict!
,,Moreover there is actual physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, that we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ in a ‘singularity’ and/or a ‘event horizon’,,,
footnotes:
Verse and Music:
Yet evolutionary theory didn’t predict marsupials, South America, Austrailia, nor Antarctica.
Evolutionary theory didn’t predict ERVs.
Yet evolutionary theory cannot explain xenarthrans, australidelphians, nor horses.
1- Not one of your “predictions” has anything to do with the alleged designer mimic natural selection
2- ID makes the same prediction as archaeology and forensics- when agenicies act they tend to leave traces of their actions behind-> traces that we can and do detect.
Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (a creationist), before Wegner, talked about the lands being all in one place- per the Bible, no less, and breaking up during the Flood.
BA77:
You have no evidence of this whatsoever. All your “indications” are based on God of the Gaps, as well as many other mathematical fallacies. If you compute probabiities ignorantly, and make up small numbers, and multiply them together, then anybody can get astronomically small probabilities.
You then assume that the default hypothesis, in the case of an astronomically incorrect probability, must be that an invisible intelligence is to blame. Now suppose that were valid. Then this would work too:
1. My cow died.
2. I can’t compute the probability of a natural explanation for my cow dying, so instead I’ll lie and make up a probability. I’ll make it low.
3. Since the probability (that I made up) of a natural explanation for Dead Cow is very low, therefore, my neighbor’s a witch.
No, that is not scientific evidence. If you wish to support the hypothesis “my neighbor’s a witch”, then the hypothesis Neighbors-A-Witch must make specific testable predictions that match observable quantities. Invisible intangible intelligences are not the default hypothesis that “wins” when science “loses.”
Your hypothesis makes no testable predictions about observable quantities. Just probabilities that you compute with astronomical incompetence.
You also make the Mud Puddle Fallacy.
1. The depression in the ground containing the mud exactly matches the puddle of mud.
2. The odds of natural forces creating a depression in the ground that exactly, precisely, matches this puddle are astronomically small.
3. Therefore the depression in the ground must have been designed to match the puddle.
Here you have reversed that which did the adapting, and that which is adapted to. Thus your intuition regarding “odds” and “probabilities” is useless.
As you are determined to pollute every thread on the internet with your incoherent shopping cart of detritus, I should get around to dismissing this, um, material. So let’s consider your “sources.”
1. Bullprob 2. Neighbors-A-Witch. 3. Mud Puddle Fallacy.
Hoyle had some briliant grad students who were good at nuclear physics. However, he had no way to compute what’s the probability of nuclear physics being anything other than what it is. In addition, this imaginary low probability does not imply cosmic intelligence, unless you first assume Neighbors-A-Witch by default. The hypothesis of cosmic intelligence does not make testable predictions.
Fred Hoyle was not a biologist. Recall that he and Lee Spetner said Archaeopteryx was a fraud. This was profoundly ignorant at best, mentally unhinged at worst.
1. Fallacy of Independent probabilities
The Drake equation is not atheistic. At any rate, it is formed by multiplying together many small probabilities, again assuming they’re independent. How do you know? The more numbers you multiply together, the more incorrect your probability is.
1. Bullprob. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch. 3. Mud puddle fallacy 4. Lottery winner fallacy
What are the odds that I should be sitting on this sofa? There are a billion sofas on earth, and I’m sitting on this one. The odds of that are a billion to one. Clearly, God must have put me on the sofa.
1. Bullprob. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch. 3. Youtube Video. I’m not watching Youtube Videos. Seen enough VenomFangX, thank you.
1. Neighbors-A-Witch. 2. Lottery winner fallacy 3. Youtube Video.
1. Neighbors-A-Witch. 2. Mud puddle
1. Probabilities simply made up. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch 3. Mud puddle 4. Lottery Winner fallacy 5. YouTube video
No such thing.
1. Probabilities simply made up. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch 3. Mud puddle 4. Lottery Winner fallacy
Enough for now.
Joe:
Wow. You mean evolution can’t predict the shape or number of continents? Darwin is finished.
What next? Newtonism didn’t predict the moons of Neptune?
Neither did creationism. But common inheritance does predict that any diverse set of inherited properties should show the same pattern of similarity and dissimilarity (phylogeny).
I don’t know what you mean by “explain.” Allege a cause? Anyone can allege a cause. Santa Claus made them. The question is, can your causative hypothesis make testable predictions about observable quantities?
You mean rather that Euclidian geometry and the average airspeed of an unladen swallow do. Evolution is not even an epicycle here, it’s entirely superfluous.
Pro Tip: Don’t cut yourself with Occam’s Razor.
Diogenes.
I wrote an essay called “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by robert Byers. Just google.
I say marsupials of S America simply walked there around the pacific rim and possibly only became marsupial upon entering s america.
Jumping over to Antartica was no big deal and unrelated to australia.
There is no reason to see marsupials as connected from a former united southern breakof of Gondwana etc.
Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals.
Maus –
I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be implying you have a non-evolutionary “explanation”, while being vague about it.
Is your explanation “They got there by getting there”? Wow, like I’ve never heard that before.
Is your “explanation” what Byers is talking about– all marsupials walked to S. America from Mount Ararat? Or maybe from Australia– I have no idea what Byers is going on about.
BA 77-
Oh, and I have to comment on your atrocious quote mining of Henry Gee. Here you are trying to quote mine an evolutionist to say evolution is disproven?
I got your logic.
No scientist dares speak out against the dogma of evolution. Here are some quotes from scientists “admitting” evolution is false.
According to your ID legendarium, any scientist who criticizes evolution will be fired and blacklisted. Now if that were true, why wasn’t Henry Gee fired and blacklisted?
There are only two possibilities.
1. ID proponents state falsely that those who criticize evolution are fired and blacklisted; or
2. ID proponents quote took Henry Gee’s words out of context to reverse their meaning.
Here Henry Gee reacts to the quote miners of Intelligent Design:
That’s your authority, BA77, saying that the Discovery Institute and its leaders have immoral values because they are dishonest and they quote mine him to misrepresent his meaning.
BA77, Henry Gee was the authority, the expert you presented. Now when he says that the Discovery Institute and its leaders have immoral values because they are dishonest and quote mine him, is he still your authority, your expert?
Well, regardless of your shallow dismissals of probability, extreme fine-tuning is a fact that refuses to go away for the materialist:
For the more technically minded, Here is a defense against Victor Stenger’s “no fine-tuning” claims:
Here is a layman friendly review of the preceding paper:
Moreover:
As well, I stand by the Gee quote on the ‘unscientific’ nature of the fossil record regardless of his opinion of the morality of the Discovery Institute, especially since objective morality cannot be grounded in a materialistic neo-Darwinian worldview in the first place!
Music and verse:
I saw that you objected that I was using “God of the gaps’ to explain fine-tuning, yet, it has been known for centuries that one must ultimately appeal to a ‘first cause’ not only for the material universe but one must even appeal to ‘first mover’ for motion in the universe.
As to first cause:
and as to ‘unmoved mover’ accounting for change in the universe (free will arguments aside for a moment):
Interesting sidenote:
Of related interest:
Diogenes,
Evolutionary theory doesn’t make any predictions based on its proposed mechanisms. It is a useless heuristic.
Joe-
Evolution makes no predictions? That’s funny– then why did creationists for decades promote dozens of fraudulent fossils, asserting that each one falsified evolution, because it contradicted the predictions of evolution?
There was the Paluxy River human fraudprints amid dinosaur tracks, which Carl Baugh named “Humanus Bauanthropus”, after himself; the “black skull” of Freiberg, actually made out of coal; the Calaveras skeleton fraud; Carl Baugh’s “Humanus Davidii”, which was actually a prehistoric fish’s tooth; Clifford Burdick’s “Moab Man” of the Cretaceous; Wilder-Smith’s “Phenanthropus mirabilis” of the Carboniferous (“footprints” outlined with chalk); Kent Hovind’s and Jack Chick’s “New Guineau Man”, wholly invented; “Meganthropus”, photoshopped pictures of Biblical giants; the Castanedolo and Olmo fossils, real enough, though their geological strata were dishonestly identified by creationists; Burdick’s pre-Cambrian pollen; and the Ica Stones from Peru, to name a few.
These were all fakes, and in every single case creationist asserted:
1. They falsified evolution.
2. They contradicted the specific predictions of evolution.
3. The fact that most scientists ignored creationists’ fraudulent concoctions was proof scientists are biased against creationism,
4. Which proves scientists are incompetent and untrustworthy due to unreasonable bigotry against fraudulent data.
Consider the creationist and Intelligent Design theories, A.E. Wilder-Smith. He spent much of his career aggressively promoting creationist fraudulent fossils, including the Paluxy fraudprints, Phenanthropus mirabilis, and Burdick’s trilobite/footprint.
In one of his books, “Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny”, he first tells us that evolution can never be falsified.
But 160 pages later, he needs to promote the Paluxy River fraudprints. So now evolution is falsifiable.
He then follows this up, as all creationists do, with some Fraudian psychoanalysis, pulling his chin and analyzing how their must be something mentally and morally deficient about scientists because they are bigoted against creationists’ fraudulent carvings, stainings, statues, chalk marks, etc. etc.
So evolution is not falsifiable, and this evidence falsifies it.
BA 77 -
I notice you are untroubled by your dishonest use of a quote mine that misrepresented Henry Gee. Henry Gee accused the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design promoters of dishonesty for quote mining him. You have no comment on that? Lying for the sake of promoting the faith, eh.
Instead, you again upend your shopping cart of incoherent detritus and hyperlinks.
I will respond to the low grade intellect, William Lane Craig.
There is no analogy between the so-called “fine tuning problem” and the firing squad fallacy. The analogy is invalid because:
1. Assuming the antecedent. In the firing squad, you know there are intelligent beings that do the shooting.
Where the laws of physics are concerned, you don’t know there are intelligences setting the physical constants. That’s what you’re trying to prove. If you assume such intelligences exist and made the physical constants, you’re assuming what you need to prove.
2. Making up probabilities. In the firing squad, you might be able to compute the probability of a shooter missing.
Where the laws of physics are concerned, you cannot compute the probability of ANY physical constant having, say, 10% higher or lower a value. So you are just making up your probabilities. The more incorrect probabilities you multiply together, the more astronomically wrong your probability is.
3. Fallacy of independent probability. In the firing squad, when you compute the supposed low probability of all the shooters missing, you multiply them together. This assumes that they are acting independently. You don’t know they’re acting independently.
Where the laws of physics are concerned, you cannot assume the physical constants are independent. Thus, when you multiply together the probabilities which you simply made up in step #1, you are making the fallacy of independent probability.
The fact that you get probabilities like 10^-1000 doesn’t impress anybody because you got them by multiplying together hundreds of numbers that were wrong. The more incorrect numbers you multiply together, the more astronomically incorrect your final probability is.
I love it when people call Craig things like this. Since his wall to wall stomping of everyone from mental midget Sam Harris to the delusional Victor Stenger just makes them seem worse given the claim. Not to mention Dawkins’ pants-wetting fear of actually confronting him.
That said, I find a lot to disagree with when it comes to Craig. So, let’s look at these objections.
The relevant aspect of the firing squad example has nothing to do with the intelligence of the guys holding the guns directly. Replace them with automatons if you want (assuming you, unlike Dawkins and Coyne, think there’s a difference between those two things.)
What you can attempt to compute, however, is the space of possibilities these constants can occupy in principle, what space of possibilities ‘life-giving universes’ occupy, and compare from there. Now, I say attempt – you work with limited information, and in the future you may learn something new which upends your estimates. But it’s not as if this is some crazy idea Craig himself came up with – you can find multiverse proponents appealing to apparent fine tuning to support multiverse speculation.
Except this isn’t an accurate portrayal of the reasoning going into the fine-tuning argument. Granted, the argument does operate on some reasonable assumptions, and in principle it’s possible for those assumptions to be incorrect. Likewise, you can’t assume that the constants aren’t independent – so any claim that the probabilities are wrong that rests on the possibility that the constants aren’t independent is itself unfounded.
By the way – the Law of Non-Contradiction. You accept it? Reject it? Really curious of that one, given your obvious commitment to logic, science and reason.
Dawkins went up against Craig in the free-for-all in Mexico. I would debate Craig anywhere, anytime. Come get me.
Oh, I forgot the biggest fallacy of all, Neighbors-A-Witch. Why is the default hypothesis that an invisible, supernatural intelligence did it, when you get a very low, very badly computed probability? Who made that the default hypothesis?
Consider the following default hypotheses:
1. A supernatural intelligent cause did it.
2. A supernatural animal acting on instinct did it.
3. An unspecified supernatural cause did it.
4. An unspecified natural cause did it.
Why is #1 the default that “wins”, when you succeed at computing astronomically incorrect probabilities? Who decided that was the default?
From a scientific point of view, all four hypotheses above stink equally: they all make the same number of testable predictions about observable quantities: zero. There is no reason why any one should be preferred over any other, if they don’t make testable predictions about observable quantities.
This is an even lousier analogy. I hate analogies in general, but this stinks. If all the automatons were made in a factory, they were made by an intelligence and you still know an intelligence exists that sets the parameters. You’re still assuming the antecedent.
No, you can’t. What is the probability that Planck’s constant should have 10% higher value? Or 10% lower value? How would you compute such probabilities?
The only way to compute such probabilities is to get a physics Theory of Everything (TOE) that unifies fundamental forces.
Now it’s important to be clear about what it means, in physics, when fundamental forces are “unified.” It means a reduction in the number of basic free parameters in the laws of physics. Free parameters which used to be considered independent, are no longer independent. Think about that.
Your badly computed probabilities are astronomically wrong because they were multiplied together from many individual parameters, and treated as if they were independent.
Now there are only two possibilities: either we have a TOE or we don’t.
1. If we don’t have a TOE, we can’t compute the probabilities of, say, Planck’s constant be 10% higher or lower (or whatever) so all probabilities are made up and then you’re just multiplying together a bunch of made up numbers.
2. If we do have a TOE, we can compute the probabilities of, say, Planck’s constant be 10% higher or lower. However, the former free parameter set (of the old theory) is not independent, so the fallacy of independent probability was wrong. The new free parameter set (of the TOE) has fewer parameters and the probability would not be as small.
But how much different? Beats me.
Either way:
1. You have to derive a TOE. This is what theoretical physicists do. They try to unify physical forces. ID does not help nor hinder what theoretical physicists have been doing for 90 years now: trying to unify physical forces. You can blather all you like about fine-tuning, but it doesn’t change the project of unifying physical forces.
2. Neighbors-A-Witch is invalid. There is no reason why the default hypothesis should be an invisible intelligent cause– not unless it makes specific testable predictions.
As for the law of non-contradiction:
Oh you want to ban me.
A statement S does not necessarily have to be true or false. A statement S can be neither true nor false, in which case not-S is neither false nor true.
If a quantum system is in an eigenstate of observable Q (with eigenvalues Q0, Q1, etc.), then the statement
If a quantum system is not in an eigenstate of observable Q, then the statement
If the observable Q= existence of the Moon, then in principle the moon might not be in an eigenstate of Q. However, the de Broglie wavelength gets tinier the more energy a particle has (here the moon is a particle), and for the moon, the de Broglie wavelength would be so fantastically sub-atomic then quantum interference effects would be practically impossible to detect. Thus, to the limit of our instruments, the moon can be treated as being in an eigenstate of Q, and
Funny – apparently Dawkins didn’t consider it a debate, and given that it was a 3v3 panel discussion, not a “free for all”, one would surmise that the reason Dawkins cut and run from an actual debate with Craig would be what everyone knows it to be: pants-wetting fear.
As for debating you: you’re an anonymous person on the internet, and even if you gave your name, chances are you’d be an effectively anonymous person on the internet. But you’d still have a chance! Craig does debate relative nobodies and even out and out hacks, like Richard Carrier.
The fine-tuning argument isn’t advanced as something that, on its own, gets one to a “invisible, supernatural intelligence” without added qualifications. It gets one to an inference of intelligence – ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ doesn’t fall out of fine-tuning inferences. Nor is it a “default” hypothesis – it’s argued for. Against, might I add, the default “somehow random purposeless unguided invisible nature did it!” explanation.
I suppose, since we’re making up fallacies here, we can call that one that Anything-But-Intelligence! fallacy.
Uh, who said anything about ‘made in a factory’? And now any automaton must be created by an intelligent agent?
Two more fallacies for you. The old-fashioned Strawman fallacy, and the Automatons-Means-Intelligent-Agent fallacy.
Yes, you can – you mark your assumptions as assumptions (‘the constant can vary by these degrees’), and you continue. Absolutely, you can question these premises – I outright said you could, just as I said future research could overturn your reasonable assumptions.
Anyway, I’ll take your glaring silence as admitting that, yes, all this “fine-tuning” talk wasn’t cooked up by eeeevilll, scaaaarrry William Lane Craig. It’s actually a widely accepted view, even by Grand, Glorious Atheists – hence the use with regards to multiverse reasoning. No one pretends that this speculation can’t be overturned by future discoveries or insights, but the facts as we have them are the facts as we have them.
Likewise, the inference to intelligent is not “default” – it’s separately argued for. Now, you can reject the reasoning there as well – really, you can go the naturalist eliminative materialist route and deny mind altogether if you wish – but it’s certainly not the “default” in the way you’re suggesting.
You should brush up on this sort of thing before you try to get in a debate with WLC. Or, really, Ken Ham – I think he’s more your speed.
Arrgh! Damn formatting problems!!! Try again:
As for the law of non-contradiction:
Oh you want to ban me.
A statement S does not necessarily have to be true or false. A statement S can be neither true nor false, in which case not-S is neither false nor true.
If a quantum system is in an eigenstate of observable Q (with eigenvalues Q0, Q1, etc.), then the statement <Q>=Q0 implies <Q>!=Q0 is false. (Here <Q> is expectation value.)
If a quantum system is not in an eigenstate of observable Q, then the statement <Q>=Q0 is neither true nor false, and <Q>!=Q0 is neither false nor true, but events of probability between 0 and 1.
If the observable Q= existence of the Moon, then in principle the moon might not be in an eigenstate of Q. However, the de Broglie wavelength gets tinier the more energy a particle has (here the moon is a particle), and for the moon, the de Broglie wavelength would be so fantastically sub-atomic that quantum interference effects would be practically impossible to detect. Thus, to the limit of our instruments, the moon can be treated as being in an eigenstate of Q, and <Q>=Q0 can be treated as either true or false to the limits of our instruments.
No, you were banned already I’m pretty sure. I’d guess champignon. I just bring this up just because I know it gets your goat, if you’re who I think you are.
So, there you go. You deny the LCD. At least you’re consistent.
Thanks nullasus! I to would like to here his take on LNC!
Funny as to which parts of Henry Gee’s quote you, Diogenes, are willing to pay attention to. For instance this part that you failed to highlight:
HMMM well that is telling!!!, or perhaps this part of the quote that you yourself had highlighted:
Exactly why is evolution not in doubt so that atheistic Darwinists, and Gee, are justified in calling whatever they find a transitional fossil??? Just because we wouldn’t be here??? Excuse me but that is exactly the question under investigation!!! How did we get here in the first place!!! And this is precisely the point ID has been making for years, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, not historical science as with Darwinists imagining whatever they want with fossils, the bilnd undirected processes of neo-Darwinian evolution are severely in doubt if not completely falsified. In the laboratory, where ‘real science’ is done, Darwinists are nowhere near making their case that ‘bottom up’ materialistic evolution is true from what we know of ‘real-time empirical evidence’! In fact everything, and I mean everything, that we find in modern ‘real-time’ experiments tells us that evolution, as in unlimited plasticity of organisms, DID NOT and COULD NOT happen in a bottom up materialistic manner!
If you disagree that evolution is not supported by any empirical evidence in the laboratory, please feel free to cite the exact lab work that brought ANY sophisticated molecular machine, and/or molecular system, into being using purely Darwinian processes.
Notes:
The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding:
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Several more ‘real-time’ studies here:
further notes:
In spite of the fact of finding molecular machines permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such molecular machine or system.
The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
Music and Verse:
Steven Curtis Chapman – Lord of the Dance (Live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXbvMcMbU0
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
BA77-
I got your logic re: Henry Gee.
First you portray him as denying there’s fossil evidence for evolution.
Then when shown to be wrong, you portray him as in on the grand conspiracy.
This is the same thing Jonathan Wells did to Michael Majerus.
Well cited Majerus as his source for Wells’ false claim that peppered moths don’t rest on trees, and all the photos were faked.
When Majerus said that was not true, Wells did not apologize, not thank him for the correction; Well just accused Majerus of being in on the grand conspiracy.
No Diogenes, I quoted Gee as to how much importance ‘scientifically’ we can place on fossils as to making the case that Darwinian evolution is true. I have no doubt that he believes evolution is true and that fossils can be used as secondary evidence on top of empirical evidence. I just want to know why he, and you, believes Darwinism to be true. Where is the exact laboratory work that shows sophisticated molecular machines, and or systems can be had by purely materialistic processes??? And since you have no empirical evidence that said systems and machines can be had, why do you consider it true? Is it true for you just because IT MUST BE TRUE for you? Sorry that just doesn’t fly in science! You must actually demonstrate what you claim to be true actually is true. If you do not cite the exact lab work showing a molecular machine coming into being by neo-Darwinian processes in your next response I will take it that you have no evidence no intention of being honest with the evidence!
BA77,
Just curious . . . if someone directed the same kind of criticism against your support of Intelligent Design what would you? That is, someone said: you’ve got no observed evidence for an intelligent desinger either now or in the distance past.
That is just it Jerad, I get that criticism fairly often, and ID still comes out on top! i.e. from a purely scientific point of view, reasoning solely from ‘presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question’,,,
,,the same method of science that Darwin himself used to try to establish the scientific validity of materialistic evolution, we know for 100% certainty that intelligence can and does routinely produce functional information as well as highly sophisticated machines and systems, whereas undirected material processes have never been shown to produce as such! It is simply a matter of inference to best explanation!
Now, as to evidence for the actual existence of God, well, there are many lines of evidence, in fact, I don’t know of any part of reality that can’t be argued fairly strongly for Theism, from the existence of the smallest sub-atomic particle/wave to the existence of the entire universe itself, but currently my favorite evidence for the existence of God is the argument from consciousness:
the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
Really, the exhibit was just so much more informative than most, and Darwinism was largely absent. That must mean something.
So little speculation, so much fact.
BA77,
Thanks for replying!
Yes, we certainly have a lot of evidence that human intelligence can produce complex specified information. But humans weren’t around way back when!!
Thank you for this. I THINK I understand your position much better now.
Jerad you state:
But the argument is not that humans created what we see in life. The argument is that ‘intelligence’, a type of conscious intelligence such as what humans uniquely possess, is required to explain what we see in life. Indeed a ‘genius beyond genius’ type of intelligence is required to explain what we see in life!!!
To build on the argument from consciousness:
Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found, by science, to be as follows:
Moreover it takes a infinite amount of information to create a single ‘material’ photon:
Thus every time we see a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information known only by infinite omniscient God!
As to the fact that this consciousness that precedes material reality, (i.e. God) directly created life (instead of space aliens as Dawkins infamously tried to hold) we can now point to non-local, beyond space and time, quantum information in life;
Quantum information Of which classical information is now found to be a subset of:
,,,This following research provides solid falsification for the late Rolf Landauer’s decades old contention that the information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it;
Moreover, finding non-local quantum information/entanglement in life, indeed finding it to be ‘holding life together’ so as to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, has very deep theological implications:
etc.. etc..
Music:
Related note as to the ‘information basis’ of reality:
BA77,
I hear what you are saying but most ID proponents will not discuss what ‘agent’ has the intelligence they are inferring. You seem much more willing to ‘nail your colors to the mast’ as it were and I appreciate that.
I think you are a person of faith and while I find some of your ‘scientific’ arguments questionable I will never, ever question that which you feel to be true deep in your heart and soul.
I realise this still leaves the issue of what gets taught in the high school science classroom unresovled but at least we should be working at understanding each other!
Jerad you state:
questionable??? And how could I make you scientifically “certain” of Theism? Speaking of ‘certainty’,,, I was thinking of this earlier today,,,
Dawkins in this following video at the 1:50 minute mark, puts a ‘probability’ of God not existing at 99% to which Stein asks, How do you know its 99% and not 97%? To which Dawkins said, I just think it is very unlikely. Stein replies ‘but you couldn’t put a number on it’? Dawkins: “No”, Stein: ‘could it be 49%’?. Dawkins: “No’, I think it is unlikely but it is quite far from 50%: Stein, How do you know?, Dawkins: “I don’t know.”
But this ‘questionable’ doubt is all very humorous for Dawkins to do since epistemology shows us that it is impossible for us to have ’100% certainty’, to know for a fact that something, anything, is absolutely true, in the first place, unless God we hold God as 100% true. Thus Dawkins will forever be muddled in a probability of questionable uncertainty!
This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Related notes:
This following video is very interesting for showing that we cannot even hold 1+1=2 as ‘certainly’ true unless we assume God to be true:
Interesting outcome of the incompleteness theorem is noted here:
Materialism’s complete epistemological failure is noted here:
Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
This ‘lack of a guarantee’, for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Even Darwin smelled a whiff of the epistemological failure that his theory entailed;
Moreover, if epistemological failure was not bad enough, you ‘certainly’ cannot establish ‘scientific certainty’ for Darwinism
Thus Jerad, though you might rightly find some of my scientific arguments ‘questionable’, I would rightly ask you in reply, “and exactly how do you personally, Jerad, establish ‘certainty’ for any scientific argument in the first place?!?”
Music and Verse:
BA77,
I don’t know. I thought faith was a matter of . . . faith.
I trust in repeated to the point of being observer independent data. Including my own. And I try very hard to critically examine events and coicidence in my own life. And, after many years of looking I find insufficient evidence for anything supernatural. Nothing that is defineable or repeatable or can be measured. And once I gave up on the concept of anything other than material causes and processes the world seems much clearer and, frankly, more serene and beautiful. But your mileage may vary. Obviously.
I don’t lable myself a materialist or an anthiest. I just go with what works based on the minimal assumptions.
,,,I trust in repeated to the point of being observer independent data,,,
I take that as empirical evidence
Thus once again, we are back to square one of what made you stick your nose in this conversation:
BA77,
Sorry I disappoint. I don’t think you have exact lab work that can demonstrate the particular thing you believe either but I’ll let it go.
Jerad states:
That is just the point Jerad! Actually we do have repeatable evidence that Intelligence can and does produce functional information. The sentence that you yourself just wrote exceeds the amount of functional information that we can reasonably expect the entire material processes of the universe to generate over the entire history of the universe. Whereas you have ZERO examples of purely material processes generating that amount of functional information. Thus in reality you have, on pain of irrationality, just denied that you have a mind and that you are intelligent and that you ’caused’ the ‘effect’ of that sentence by means of your intelligence??? i.e. Thanks for providing proof that you have no evidence nor intention of being honest with the evidence!
notes:
To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:
Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,
10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.
How many bits would that be:
Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits
Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU
Music
Sarah McLachlan – Ordinary Miracle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqZE4ZDnAkQ
footnotes:
Example of intelligence generating functional proteins:
Book Review: Creating Life in the Lab: How New discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator – Rich Deem – January 2011
Excerpt: Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?”
http://www.godandscience.org/e.....e_lab.html
Research group develops more efficient artificial enzyme – November 2011
Excerpt: Though the artificial enzyme is still many orders of magnitude less efficient than nature’s way of doing things, it is far more efficient than any other artificial process to date, a milestone that gives researchers hope that they will one day equal nature’s abilities.
http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nzyme.html
Example of ntelligence producing a molecular machine:
Researchers in the UK and Belgium have measured the work performed by a single manmade molecule.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....081101.asp
Example of intelligence producing a Protein-Protein binding site:
Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses – June 1, 2012
Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, “to leapfrog over bottlenecks” to improve the activity of the binder.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-c.....ruses.html
Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design Sick! (as in cool) – Fazale Rana – June 2011
Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required:
“…cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2″
If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely?
In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs requires intelligent agency to arise. Sick!
http://www.reasons.org/viral-b.....-sick-cool
BA77,
Mmmmmmm, but do you have lab evidence that any agent known to exist at the time in queston was capable of producing the specific complex specified information? Something we can’t do so there’s no evidence, yet (I admit), that we could even do it.
I’m not saying your supposition is irrational but it is just a supposition at this point.
Sarah McLacklan is lovely for sure.
Yes!
because God is timeless and is not constrained by time and space in any way, shape, or form, indeed it is shown that He created time and space at the big bang, therefore we have, in our ample ‘laboratory’ evidence for the Big Bang, evidence of a unfathomable powerful agent operating outside the confines of time and space, who is not constrained by time and space, who was more than capable of producing the functional information at the time in question, or at any other time in question including this present moment!.
notes: