Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: I Believe in Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

After much thought and consideration, I have decided to announce at UD that I believe in evolution.

Living things are not now as they once were, so they must have evolved.

There you have it: I believe in evolution. In fact, I assert that evolution is a fact based on the evidence, and not a hypothesis or “theory.”

I have major proof that evolution is true: I was once a little baby, and now I’m a great big baby! What further proof could be required to support the fact that evolution is true? And my evolution didn’t take even one generation; it took a zero generation. (I tried “zero generations” but that didn’t quite seem to work logically, since zero is obviously not multiple. I need to work out the tricky math here. I’m currently investigating multiverse theory in an attempt to resolve this mathematical conundrum.)

Now that I have come to my senses and accepted evolution as not only being true, but established fact based on evidence, how can I resolve my few remaining doubts? (I’m sure that these doubts are based upon my complete ignorance of the empirically verified research of Darwinian scientists, who have worked out all the details. I’ve searched for such research high and low, and always seem to come up empty-handed. Obviously, I must be searching in the wrong place.)

Here is one of my few remaining doubts about the fact of evolution: After writing this post I’m going to sit down at my Baldwin grand piano and practice Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.

If I understand evolutionary theory appropriately, this means that I, Rachmaninoff, his music, my piano, the people who designed and built my piano, and every aspect of every living thing was the product of the Darwinian mechanisms of random changes filtered by natural selection, which turned a bacterium into Rachmaninoff in about 10^17 seconds. I’ve done the math, and this seems highly unlikely. Obviously I’m missing something here (silly me!).

Once again, I want to emphasize that I have now converted to the obvious, factual, irrefutable, scientific truth of evolution.

I just have a few remaining doubts about the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism. I’m sure that this deplorable lack of scientific understanding on my part will be cleared up promptly by qualified Darwinian scientists.

I’m astute, well educated, and experienced in a number of computational, scientific, mathematical, and engineering disciplines. I’m thoroughly open to any logically persuasive argumentation concerning my very few and obviously inconsequential doubts concerning my thorough and irrevocable belief in evolution.

Comments
Elizabeth Liddle (#6):
Science necessarily involves an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything.
Many people make that claim. I think it is mistake. For it depends on the assumption that there is a fixed division into natural and supernatural. As I see it, science is evidence based. And when science identifies a cause, it deems what it has identified as being natural. The history of science is a history of the growth of what is considered to be natural, and the shrinking of what is considered to be supernatural. Those who still insist on a role for the supernatural are in the position of painting themselves into a corner. And as the supernatural continues to shrink, the corner where they have confined themselves becomes increasing uncomfortable.Neil Rickert
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Elizabeth asks: 'If your answer is that they do, and you include minds and quantum effects as “supernatural” then you (sic) do you account for the existence of quantum physicists and neuroscientists? The point is that natural processes are completely bankrupt as to explain the existence of quantum physicists and neuroscientists in the first place. Just because your preferred natural cause of filtered accidents (neo-darwinian evolution) is unable to account for even the most trivial levels of functional complexity, much less the existence of quantum physicists and neuroscientists, matters not one iota to me. Why should I even entertain the thought that you are sane for positing as such???bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Say we are observing some phenomena- X. We can study X as X is occurring right in front of many scientists. Afetr many years of investigtion scientists conclude that with X energy is increasing and physical laws are being violated. And seeing that X is ongoing they have been able to trace back to the source. The source is God. Were they doing science? According to Lizzie they were not.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you ask: 'Are you saying that scientists do, or do not, have an a priori commitment to excluding the “supernatural”?' Once again, let's break down methodological naturalism: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. A Question for Barbara Forrest http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/question-for-barbara-forrest.html In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins agrees: "The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." Richard Dawkins https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/free-to-think-why-scientific-integrity-matters-by-caroline-crocker/ The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml For a quick overview, here are a few: 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 at the base 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 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)- 7. 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. - 8. 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. - 9. 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.". - 10. 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) - 11. 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) - 12. 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 - 13. 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. - 14. 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. - 15. 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. - references: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity: General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & the Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070355bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
EL:
Well, that’s exactly what I mean, Joseph – if the methodology simply means inferring the supernatural from lack of an alternative, that is no more than regarding the supernatural as the null.
We come to an inference based on our knowledg of cause and effect relationships. I can't help it if you cannot understand that. If we have evidence for a chair moving- very noticeably moving- without any known causes present to move it, did we or did we not see it move? Do we then infer it moved by itself "just because"? Or do we consider something unknown caused it and go from there to try to pinpoint it?
He’s made exactly the mistake I think that UDists often make, which is to confuse a “supernatural” cause with an “intelligent” cause.
I take it you don't understand what is ment by an "intelligent" cause. I would say all supernatural causes are intelligent causes but not all intelligent causes are supernatural causes.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
oops, should have amended "your" to "my".Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Well Elizabeth, I don’t care what you call your mind, but the ‘miracle’ of you producing functional information is not reducible to the material particles bouncing around in your brain,,, I don’t care how many degrees you got!!! Sometimes those who claim to be wise are the blindest of all!!!
I entirely agree that my mind is not "reducible to the material particles bouncing around in your brain". My mind is a higher level entity entirely. And perfectly amenable to scientific investigation.Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Well, ba77, it seems to me, the conundrum is yours. Are you saying that scientists do, or do not, have an a priori commitment to excluding the "supernatural"? If your answer is that they do, and you include minds and quantum effects as "supernatural" then you do you account for the existence of quantum physicists and neuroscientists? If your answer is that they do not, then what is your complaint about science? Seems to me that you are in quite the conundrum :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
correction; and to pretend that a warrant for cause beyond ‘natural’ DOES NOT exist!!!bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Well Elizabeth, I don't care what you call your mind, but the 'miracle' of you producing functional information is not reducible to the material particles bouncing around in your brain,,, I don't care how many degrees you got!!! Sometimes those who claim to be wise are the blindest of all!!!bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
So Elizabeth, you are in quite the conundrum!!! The only option I see for you is to completely ignore positing any cause whatsoever, and to pretend that a warrant for cause beyond 'natural' exists!!! Which, just so happens to be what you have done in a few other posts when presented with this evidence!!! ,,bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Well, ba77, I wouldn't call my mind "supernatural" - or rather, if that is what you are calling "supernatural" then it's perfectly amenable to science, and science has no "a priori commitment" to natural causes only. There are entire fields of science devoted to the mind, and I work in one of them. Similarly, if you call what particle physicist work with "the supernatural" ditto. So I am bemused: If the charge is that scientists a priori exclude "the supernatural", how do you account for psychologists and neuroscientists, and particle physicists?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, as to falsify Neo-Darwinism, once again,,, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the true description of reality, is now found in molecular biology! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis – May 11 2010 Excerpt: “This is the first study to show that entanglement, perhaps the most distinctive property of quantum mechanical systems, is present across an entire light harvesting complex,” says Mohan Sarovar, a post-doctoral researcher under UC Berkeley chemistry professor Birgitta Whaley at the Berkeley Center for Quantum Information and Computation. “While there have been prior investigations of entanglement in toy systems that were motivated by biology, this is the first instance in which entanglement has been examined and quantified in a real biological system.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510151356.htm i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must show local realism to be sufficient to explain the quantum non-locality we find within molecular biology! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology, or anything else for that matter, destroys the very possibility of doing science rationally; Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, by you writing your very own posts you are demonstrating a 'super (beyond) natural' cause; i.e. Is what you write the result of material particles bouncing around in your brain (a natural cause)??? or is what you write the result of your transcendent mind (a supernatural cause) choosing, with intent, the precise functional information that you wish to express??? Here is the methodology for determining which cause, natural of supernatural, is true; Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html The methodology for determining functional information in molecular biology is similar: Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/ 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.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html In fact Elizabeth this, reasoning from presently acting cause, is the same exact type of methodology used by Charles Darwin himself,,, Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651/ Thus Elizabeth do you wish to reject Charles Darwin's methodology??? further note: "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 Codes and Axioms are always the result of mental intention, not material processes https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1PrE2Syt5SJUxeh2YBBBWrrPailC3uTFMdqPMFrzvwDYbornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Oh, and BTW, I disagree with Dawkins on this. He's made exactly the mistake I think that UDists often make, which is to confuse a "supernatural" cause with an "intelligent" cause. Intelligent causes are well within the domain of scientific investigation.Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
OOPs, in-mod comment, probably on number of links.kairosfocus
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Well, that's exactly what I mean, Joseph - if the methodology simply means inferring the supernatural from lack of an alternative, that is no more than regarding the supernatural as the null. Which is an extremely weak methodology, and means the only falsification possible is by continuing to investigate natural causes. Which is exactly what science does. In effect, by accusing science of having an "a priori commitment to natural causes" you are saying that science should cease investigation which it ceases to find a natural cause, and conclude "supernatural". In which case, by what criteria should science cease to investigate? Do you not see the problem?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Pardon. I think a comment on points in light of your remarks at 8 above is in order, for record at least since this seems to be a sticking point. The following summarises points I have made in several threads now, but have not seen a cogent response from you (or others): _________ Science necessarily involves a: This is a claim of MUST, i.e this is already a commitment that suggests that apart from this no science, so how do you account for the facts of the founding of modern science and the views of the actual founders thereof, as I have documented say here? an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything. b: NIX. Science only implicates the study of empirically observable and testable phenomena, which in turn implicates the question of inference from well-tested sign to signified cause. c: We may and do categorise these as tracing to chance, necessity and choice, whereby we may further cluster the first two as material or natural, and the latter as artificial. This categorisation is for instance used by Plato, by Newton and by Monod [cf his, Chance and Necessity] d: We may characterise and study each of these causal factors on their general signs, and further investigate on the specific observed object or phenomenon. To wit, we may see that:
i: by mechanical necessity, we get lawlike regularities -- i.e. low contingency of outcomes -- under sufficiently similar starting conditions (a dropped heavy object falls at g), a common enough goal of scientific investigation being to identify such laws, e.g. F = m*a ii: by chance, under similar initial conditions, we have highly contingent outcomes (a dropped die will tumble and settle to various readings) in accordance with a statistical distribution. Sometimes scientific investigations try to characterise such distributions and their roots, e.g. the Weibull distribution of wind speeds etc. iii: by choice, we will also get highly contingent outcomes under similar starting conditions, but credibly linked to purpose not chance, e.g. the pattern of symbols in messages as opposed to noise -- studied in and foundational to information theory.
It does not possess the methodolgoy to discover any other kind of cause. e: This is premised on an assumption that the only way we may categorise the world is on natural vs supernatural, where the later may be derided. f: In short, this is an implicit -- perhaps unrecognised -- assumption of a priori MATERIALISM, not an open-minded, empirically based investigation of the world as is, in light of empirical facts and observations, explained without ideologically censoring possibilities g: Do we know that all that there is, is "natural," or that science may only study and explain by the "natural"? That depends, crucially on what you mean by "natural." h: If you mean a smuggling in of materialism by assumptions and definitions, that is a major begging of the question, for what science studies is the EMPIRICALLY OBSERVABLE in a world that credibly had a beginning. i: Such a cosmos, is credibly contingent, i.e. it entails a cause external to itself, as if something may not exist or had a beginning, it has conditions under which it may/may not exist. j: In turn that points to a causal root in a necessary being, that has no external causal dependency. Such a being has no beginning, and has no end. By logic. (Formerly, until it was recognised that the evidence points to a beginning for the cosmos we live in, the Steady State type view assumed the wider observed cosmos was that necessary being, but now Humpty Dumpty has fallen. [We need not go into the wider discussion of contingency, contingency on a credible beginning is enough to force consideration of possibilities, then.]) k: Multiply by the evident fine tuning of our observed cosmos, that supports C-chemistry cell based life; which is also relevant even in the case of an assumed or speculated wider multiverse, as LOCAL fine tuning is enough. As John Leslie put it:
. . . the need for such explanations [[for fine-tuning] does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor [[emphasis original] alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly. [[Our Place in the Cosmos, 1998. The force of this point is deepened once we think about what has to be done to get a rifle into "tack-driving" condition.That is, a "tack-driving" rifle is a classic example of a finely tuned, complex system, i.e. we are back at the force of Collins' point on a multiverse model needing a well adjusted Cosmos bakery. (Slide show, ppt. "Simple" summary, doc.)]
l: That points to functionally specific, complex organisation of a cosmos [and associated complex information], something that is habitually and empirically associated with choice and purpose, i.e. design. Indeed, in every case where we directly know the cause for such FSCO/I, it is designed. m: So, we have as a reasonable possibility -- and, arguably a best explanation -- that the observed cosmos is externally caused by a purposive, powerful, necessary being, which has no beginning, no ending, and that based on scientific observation and the logic of contingency. Such a being is warranted on our contingent world, and is causally self-sufficient, i.e. self-explanatory. The real issue is the nature of the necessary being, not its existence, once we have a contingent cosmos to be explained. And, blind necessity or a chaos are vastly inferior to intelligence as explanations of FSCO/I, absent imposition of a priori materialism -- i.e. we here see the censoring effect of the materialistic question-begging above. n: Since, too, we have here a case in hand where science has indeed studied origins, and the beginning of our world, and -- absent question-begging censorship -- a serious alternative points beyond the contingent "natural" world we inhabit to root cause by an entirely different category of being, we already see that science can not only study natural vs artificial, but design by an entirely different category of being that can credibly be termed, supernatural. That is, beyond nature in the sense of our observed cosmos. (The proposed multiverse we hear about so often today is UN-observed.) What methodology would you recommend for investigating an un-natural/supernatural cause? o: First, stop begging metaphysical questions by imposing a priori materialism, or going along with such imposition, not hard as that evolutionary materialism (aka scientific materialism aka [scientific] naturalism etc etc) is already self-referentially incoherent, self refuting and necessarily false, by undermining mind itself. As Haldane summed up the challenge it faces:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
p: Then, recognise that it is more useful to scientifically study natural and artificial causes on an empirical basis, and so to focus their characteristic signs, than to beg metaphysical questions. q: Nor should we allow ideologues to rattle us with their Alinskyite uncivil bully-boy tactics of distortion, denigration, censorship and intimidation. r: For instance, this pattern as follows is reasonable and quite often actually used, tracing to say Hippocrates of Cos and early medicine, and also reflecting Peirce's more recent logic of abductive inference:
I: [si] --> O, on W (I infer from a pattern of observed signs, to an objective state of affairs, on a particular warrant [often, inference to best explanation], each to be specified case by case, cause by cause.)
s: Then, proceed on the understanding that we commonly observe causal patterns that may be described with profit as natural or material [= chance and/or necessity], and intelligent [= art or design or choice contingency]. t: in that light, identify and test characteristic reliable signs of these causal processes for aspects of phenomena, processes or objects. u: Just as, in say studying a pendulum [a case of direct manipulation as experimental design], we identify what is caused by the experimenter manipulating the string's length, what is or is not due to varying the mass of the bob, what is chance-based random scatter around a line that characterises a law of mechanical necessity, and what is due to the dynamics of a pendulum swinging across an arc in a gravity field. (And similarly, how -- using ANOVA -- we isolate factors in a control vs treatment study across blocks and plots.) v: In short, we routinely apply the explanatory filter algorithm in doing scientific studies, so it is not unreasonable to identify general signs of the relevant causal factors, and to trust them if they pass reasonable tests, e.g. necessity produces lawlike regularities, chance produces statistical scatter, and choice produces FSCO/I.
(If you see a pendulum experiment set up with apparatus fitted to the purpose of adjusting length of string, arc, and mass, with a timer sitting nearby and a record of results on say a coded digital tape, do you infer to chance or choice or necessity? Why?)
w: Now, the hard step: have the courage to trust the patterns of warranted inference beyond where we have direct access to observe the causal process. This is the step taken by Newton when he said, in his General Scholium to Principia:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another . . .
x: In short, if we see a tested, reliable pattern of inference from sign to signified state of affairs, we have good reason to trust that it will expend to cases where we cannot directly check. y: Now, simply apply to the origin of our cosmos, as above. We see signs of art, i.e FSCO/I, in the context of fine-tuning that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based intelligent life. We see also that we have an evidently contingent cosmos that cries out for a root cause in a necessary being. (You will note that I do NOT use the case of evidence pointing to design in life, as this is a case where, from the very beginnings of modern design theory -- as utterly contrasted to the caricatures being used by objectors -- it has been recognised that design of cell based life on earth would be sufficiently accounted for by a designer within the cosmos. Say, a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter et al.) z: That is as far as science and logic proper will take us, but:
1: that is far enough to see that a very viable candidate will be an intelligent, extra-cosmic, powerful, purposeful and deeply knowledgeable necessary being; 2: this being a case of empirically based, observationally anchored inference to design or art, as opposed to 3: a priorism-driven inference to or against "the supernatural." 4: Philosophy and theology will take the ball and run with it from there. 5: Such a being would be a very good example of the super-natural, pointed to by investigations of nature on empirically well warranted patterns of cause and effect. 6: So, we see that science needs not essay to study "the supernatural" only to study natural vs artificial causes on empirically tested warrant. 7: It therefore is high time that the materialists' favourite "natural vs supernatural" strawman caricature of our alternatives, was laid to rest, with a stake through its heart. 8: We only need to study, on empirical signs, natural vs artificial causes. As was pointed out by Plato, 2,350 years ago, in The Laws, Bk X.
___________ In short, the matter pivots on breaking a powerfully institutionalised strawman caricature of the scientific method, and our investigatory and warranting options. Our real, as opposed to strawman options are to study:
Natural vs supernatural artificial causes.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Also, Lizzie, it is up to YOU to support your claims. And if you don’t understand that then you don’t understand science.
Well, not really. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone can tell me by what methodology science can investigate the supernatural. But I'd like a more credible source than Ghostbusters, I think :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Ghost HUNTERS Lizzie- but thanks for proving that you are obtuse...Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Clueless- you investigate the event/ object/ phenomena in question and try to determine the cause. And if nature, operating freely couldn’t do it then there must have been something else- just as there was in the origin of nature.
The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.- Richard Dawkins
That was taken from here- Dawkins starts talking near the 14:30+ mark.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Wiki tells me that Ghostbusters is "1984 American science fiction comedy film". um.Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Well, I saw that you suggested I watch "Ghost busters". I don't watch much television. Can you describe their methodology? Also I do not find your link to Dawkins in this thread - could you repost?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Also, Lizzie, it is up to YOU to support your claims. And if you don't understand that then you don't understand science.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
I have already told you. I have also linked to Dawkins who says it (the supernatural) is science. I cannot force you to read what I post but your ignoring what I post doesn't make it go away.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Well, tell me how they can, then, if you think my view is incorrect.Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I’m saying that science cannot investigate supernatural causes.
Again you aren't anyone who can make such a declaration.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Meleager - you misunderstand (indeed a number of you do!): I am not saying that science cannot establish intelligent causes, or intentional agesnt as causes, it can and we do. I'm saying that science cannot investigate supernatural causes. You may like to infer from the lack of an evidentially supported scientifically postulated natural cause that a supernatural cause is at work, but that isn't a scientific inference, it's a philosophical one. It's simply the stance that posits the supernatural as the null - but it's a weak one because it's essentially supernatural-of-the-gaps and vulnerable to shrinking gaps.Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
ba77: that is not what I asked. It may well be that it is absurd to posit an uncreated universe. My question is methodological: by what methodology could
science
uncover a supernatural cause?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle says: "Science necessarily involves an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything." I guess forensics and cyrptography are not real science when they find that something has been generated by artifice - by non-natural agencies?Meleagar
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply