OK, truth be told I have better things to do too, so I’ll just briefly comment to sign off. I suspect we will end up agreeing to disagree (civily, though, I’m sure!). Thanks for your time, though.

“What you describe as the DNA point mutation is part of what is ostensibly a naturalistic evolutionary process. What I had in mind was the explanation for what caused the process. That’s the point. Physical processes don’t occur without a cause.”

I think the cause here is just the action of forces at molecular level, whuich is entirely natural.

“From Wikipedia: “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids.”

Agreed, but my point was that it isn’t information in the sense that an entity was trying to communicate with another, or the entity was doing coding to build anything. It;s an entirely natural process. In the same way, photons received at a telescope contain information about the emitting body, such as a star, but no-one thinks that the photon has been designed that way – it’s entirely natural.

“Also, let’s not lose track of my original claim. I am saying that Darwinists prefer the counterintuitive explanation that design is an “illusion” rather than the common sense position that it is real. By denying that coded information is real, and by failing to provide an evolutionary pathway to “information,” even if you don’t want to call it that, suggests that you “prefer” the counterintuitive explanation.”

Actually, my preference is that it was designed, for reasons given earlier. I just consider the evidence, such as it is, very thin indeed.

“Science is based on the proposition that ALL physical events have causes. Quantum mechanics shows that physical events can appear spontaneously and unpredictably; it does NOT show that they are uncaused.”

My point is that, actually, quantum mechanics does in fact produce problems of causality. Take two neighbouring atoms with unstable nuclei – one nucleus may decay at any moment whilst the other may never decay during the life of the universe. Yet both are in the same environment and experience the same forces, so why does one decay and the other not? This type of phenomenon is a major problem for those who say every effect has a cause.

“Let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right and assume that some of these events are causeless. What then? Why cannot many physical events be causeless? Let’s assume further that 30% of all physical events have a cause and 70% of all physical events do have a cause. How would we know which ones are caused and which ones are not? How could we be sure that any of them are caused? What would science do at that point? It would be an intellectual madhouse.

Actually, quantum mechanics does strike me as an intellectual madhouse! But seriously, I don’t think the proposition is a 30/70 split between causality and non-causality. Like much of physics, it depends on the physical regime – at the very small scale, causality seems problematical and science has to deal with it as it is (which may mean having to accept probabilistic outcomes as opposed to deterministic ones). Similarly, at a large and high energy scale, relativity comes into effect and the phenomenon there are equally hard to understand (although here, cause and effect aren’t a problem). It’s only in the middle range where humans are comfortable, where cause and effect are reliable and the effects themselves make sense. That may be because our brains and senses evolved to allow us to be comfortable in this range.

“Keep in mind that the rule that all physical events require a cause is not really a scientific rule. It is a philosophical rule about reason itself, just as the law of non-contradiction is a rule about reason. It is part of the metaphysical foundations for science, and science cannot do without them.”

I think it can. Indeed, where quantum mechanics is concerned, it probably does. My view of philosophy is, if philosophy says one thing and the evidnence another, then the philosophy is wrong and needs to change.

“Indeed, I have had Darwinists on this site actually try to argue that a thing CAN be and not be at the same time. Again, if the law of non contradiction can be violated even once, why can it not be violated again and again? Why not anytime we please? We can do science only because we agree with its philosophical underpinning, which assumes that we live in a rational universe that makes sense, and the rules of right reason are the elements that make it rational.”

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t agree with it. Science is based on what works. All the evidence suggest that we live in a reliable universe (I refrain from using “rational” because of phenomenon like quantum mechanics, whcih strikes me as irrational but we have to accept it) – phenomena we observe here occur in the same way in other parts of the universe and at other epochs (as observed by looking back in time through the universe). But if it didn’t that would just complicate the science – it wouldn’t necessarily stop it.

“Insofar as a scientist argues that the decay has no cause, and because of their ignorance about metaphysics, some clearly do, then they are undermining their own discipline for reasons indicated above.”

I disagree – it may mean looking again at the science, maybe even establishing a new branch of it, but it doesn’t mean science stops. Indeed, that is what has happened the last century saw the spawning of entirely new types of physics.

“It is on thing to say that we don’t know the cause of the decay; it is quite another thing to say that there is no cause. This is the point where we exercise our humility. We say we don’t know the cause, but we don’t presume to say that the event is causeless. We are back to the distinction between something being unpredictable and spontaneous versus something being uncaused. It is not the same thing.”

My example of neighbouring atoms suggests otherwise.

“How did the collection of matter get ordered? How could hydrogen become consciousness? That is synonymous with the argument that something can come from nothing, which, again, violates the standards of right reason.”

No, it isn’t – ordering happens in nature quite frequently (crystals and snowflakes being prime examples, geological strata too). It certainly isn’t “something from nothing” (which in any case I don’t agree with, as quantum mechanics also suggests something can spontaneoulsy arise, albeit briefly by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle).

“Granted they are different questions, but they are related questions. If the universe has no purpose then neither does biodiversity have a purpose.”

Not necessarily true – it depends what you mean by “purpose” and who sets it. As it happens, I believe both are purposeless.

“If the universe has a purpose, then life has a purpose, which means that Darwinism, which says that life happened without a purpose, is wrong. I have thought it through many times.”

It’s not necessarily true, I’m afraid. Here’s an example: suppose the universe DOES have a purpose, and that purpose is that it’s a giant machine, some sort of calculator or simulator. In this machine, the key components and subsystems are clusters, galaxies and stars. Planets are nothing more than the debris left over from the production of the smallest essential component (i.e. stars). In that case, life would just be an inconsequential natural phenomenon that infests some of the debris (and maybe just on our bit). in that case, the universe would have purpose but life wouldn’t, and purposeless Darwinism, as you put it, would be the mechanism whereby the purposeless life changed.

“If the designer created the universe for a purpose, then its purpose is obviously not artificial.”

I’m afraid it’s not obvious to me at all. It still seems artificial, in that it was made by something (i.e. the creator).

“Suppose, for example, that you were made for a purpose. That would mean that you have a destiny that you could either embrace or ignore, and it would matter a great deal whether or not you chose acknowledge that fact.”

Only as far as the creator was concerned. I would be, in its eyes, an errant creation. But that would be its problem.

“On the other hand, if you were not made for a purpose, then it really wouldn’t matter what you do. Poor little creatures that we are, we could not change that reality by getting excited about baseball or science. We would be deluding ourselves by trying to inject meaning when meaning isn’t there. That would indeed be an example of an artificial purpose.”

I still don’t see the difference – sorry.

Prezactly!

GEM of TKI

Congratulations, you’ve shown you can read and comprehend, when you try. I’m not bothering to engage with you because you are clearly a rude person – you’re comments about catching up and giving a nickname that’s clearly intended to be derogatory demonstrate it, and I’ve no wish to follow you into it (and I’m sorry I started to). I’ve also no wish to engage with someone who tosses a reference into a debate, with no discussion.

So I’ll leave you with this final comment – my comment at 110 was that there was no evidence for intelligent design, which was actually lamenting the lack of physical evidence (hence the comment about exobiology). You, on the other hand provided a reference to a theoretical paper which, whilst interesting, is theoretical and no more evidence for intelligent design (which it doesn’t even mention) in nature than Dawkins’ “Weasel programme” is evidence for natural selection in nature. You have not addressed my original point in 110, clearly have no intention of doing so politely, and I will therefore disengage and write my final comment to StephenB, who has at least been polite.

I think it’s you that needs to catch up – with your reading comprehension, for a start.

Yes, perhaps you are right, so let’s walk through your quote from Abel’s paper together. I am certain we will find the issue of my reading comprehension looming large. I hope you don’t mind if I call you Skippy while we are doing so (forgive me, it’s a remnant of a mentor that use to call me Skippy whenever I definitely knew the answer to a question that he knew I could hardly discern – just as you have here).

Ok Skippy, lets first look at the paragraph that has you in a tizzy – and let’s do it piece by piece shall we?

“Selection pressure works only on existing successful messages, and then only at the phenotypic level. Environmental selection does not choose which nucleotide to add next to a forming single-stranded RNA. Environmental selection is always after-the-fact. It could not have programmed primordial RNA genes. Neither could noise. Abel has termed this The GS Principle (Genetic Selection Principle) [137]. Differential molecular stability and happenstantial self- or mutual-replication are all that nature had to work with in a prebiotic environment. The environment had no goal or intent with which to “work.”

“Selection pressure works only on existing successful messages, and then only at the phenotypic level.”

There is nothing odd here. Selection works after function is functioning (and can then confer a selective advantage to be selected against the population).

“Environmental selection does not choose which nucleotide to add next to a forming single-stranded RNA.”

Again, nothing is out of line here. There is no chemical affinity in the linear direction of DNA or RNA -and- environmental selection happens only after a trait is instantiated at the nucleic level (but not before).

“Environmental selection is always after-the-fact.”

Yep.

“It could not have programmed primordial RNA genes. Neither could noise.”

Meaning: selection for function at the nucleic level is distinct from environmental selection. The environment did not cause the functional sequences of RNA (unless we rewrite everything that is known about natural selection). And, a mechanism that operates at the level of noise (maximum uncertainty) such as chance, could not have programmed (organized into function) the disparate cellular objects under the subsequent control of RNA. (It also could not have established the encoded language by which that control would be prescribed and translated). Check.

“Abel has termed this The GS Principle (Genetic Selection Principle) [137].”

Fine with me…after all, this is not a bout David Abel, or Newton, or Polanyi, or Thaxton, or Behe, or Denton, or Dembski, or Durston, or Meyer. This is about the physical evidence – so, any of them can call it whatever they want. It doesn’t matter. The only issue is whether the evidence can be shared between all observers so that anyone (who cares to know) can know by looking at the evidence itself.

“Differential molecular stability and happenstantial self- or mutual-replication are all that nature had to work with in a prebiotic environment. The environment had no goal or intent with which to “work.””

This is a comment of intuitive reality (right out of Abiogenesis/Evolution 101) – unless you’d like to ignore the observable facts and argue that the organization of living tissue was predestined by the chemical properties of uracil, thymine, adenine, cytosine, and guanine. If that is the case, then I’d like to know the chemical properties which suggest that thymine, followed by adenine, followed by guanine in a linear fashion should mean “stop and release” in the process of protein synthesis.

- – - – - – - – -

Seriously, I am wondering why you posted this paragraph at all. It is forever certain that you mis-understood what is being conveyed by the author. The entirety of this paragraph is communicating the rather simple idea that environmental selection is not responsible for the creation of functional sequencing in RNA because functional sequencing precedes environmental selection …you know, the functional sequencing that a) is required for living things to live, and b) cannot be explained by the physical properties of the matter involved.

And to this you say I am most obviously wrong about this paper. After all, you say, “it assumes evolution occurred, as evidenced by this paragraph where random mutation and natural selection are invoked”

Skippy – they are invoked as being completely incapable of being the source of what is observed in Life at the nucleic level. Did you just not understand that?

- – - – - – - – -

Given your apparent and substantial misunderstanding of the paper, I would like to be gracious (much like the grace afforded Michael Behe and Bill Dembski). I will only mention once that you also said “have you actually read the paper, because if you had you wouldn’t make that claim. It makes no mention of intelligent design at all.”

In response to this rather spurious challenge, I would simply ask a reasonable yet straightforward question. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that when you challenge me (as to whether or not I’ve read the paper) that you yourself have read it prior to making such a challenge. As such, I want to ask: what exactly did you think the author was proposing when he wrote (in this peer-reviewed journal):

The fundamental contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each configurable-switch-position symbol, algorithmic function and language will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71].

?

Thanks for your comments. I will give you the last word, because I am getting behind in my work. Have a good weekend—or whatever is left of it.

Thanks for the dialogue. Duty calls, so I cannot respond to your latest comments. Best wishes!!!

—-Gaz: “Only to the extent that the “cause” was the random mutation of a gene – for example, a DNA point mutation such as an adenine molecule being replaced by a guaning molecule. That’s all that is needed to start the process.”

What you describe as the DNA point mutation is part of what is ostensibly a naturalistic evolutionary process. What I had in mind was the explanation for what caused the process. That’s the point. Physical processes don’t occur without a cause.

—-Here’s the bad news for you – DNA isn’t coded information in the sense that an entity was trying to convey a message to someone, or even to use it to build something. It’s an illusion that there is any “information” in that sense in DNA.

From Wikipedia: “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids.”

Also, let’s not lose track of my original claim. I am saying that Darwinists prefer the counterintuitive explanation that design is an “illusion” rather than the common sense position that it is real. By denying that coded information is real, and by failing to provide an evolutionary pathway to “information,” even if you don’t want to call it that, suggests that you “prefer” the counterintuitive explanation.

Science is based on the proposition that ALL physical events have causes. Quantum mechanics shows that physical events can appear spontaneously and unpredictably; it does NOT show that they are uncaused.”

—-“Oh okay, I see what you are saying (I think). But I still don’t think I agree with you. For example, take beta decay (involving an electron) -the decay is mediated as a weak interaction, which could be the cause, but what is it that actually triggers an individual neutron to decay at a particulat time?” “At the very least, quantum mechanics poses a very large question mark over causality at that level. If you disagree, perhaps you would tell me what it is that causes a neutron to undergo beta decay?”

Let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right and assume that some of these events are causeless. What then? Why cannot many physical events be causeless? Let’s assume further that 30% of all physical events have a cause and 70% of all physical events do have a cause. How would we know which ones are caused and which ones are not? How could we be sure that any of them are caused? What would science do at that point? It would be an intellectual madhouse. Keep in mind that the rule that all physical events require a cause is not really a scientific rule. It is a philosophical rule about reason itself, just as the law of non-contradiction is a rule about reason. It is part of the metaphysical foundations for science, and science cannot do without them. Indeed, I have had Darwinists on this site actually try to argue that a thing CAN be and not be at the same time. Again, if the law of non contradiction can be violated even once, why can it not be violated again and again? Why not anytime we please? We can do science only because we agree with its philosophical underpinning, which assumes that we live in a rational universe that makes sense, and the rules of right reason are the elements that make it rational.

—-“Even if causality is a problem at the quantum mechanical level – which it is – that doesn’t mean that ALL physical events are a problem causally.” “Hence science has managed to carry on despite the inability to know when a certain individual atom will decay. Science does this sort of thing all the time.”

Insofar as a scientist argues that the decay has no cause, and because of their ignorance about metaphysics, some clearly do, then they are undermining their own discipline for reasons indicated above.

—–“I think the atom example demonstrates that it is you that does not understand.”

It is on thing to say that we don’t know the cause of the decay; it is quite another thing to say that there is no cause. This is the point where we exercise our humility. We say we don’t know the cause, but we don’t presume to say that the event is causeless. We are back to the distinction between something being unpredictable and spontaneous versus something being uncaused. It is not the same thing.

—–No, it isn’t – not if the mind can arise form an ordered collection of matter, which is certainly a possibility.

How did the collection of matter get ordered? How could hydrogen become consciousness? That is synonymous with the argument that something can come from nothing, which, again, violates the standards of right reason. How anyone could posit that and dismiss design is a marvel. The only explanation is the one on the table. Such a person would have to want to believe it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

—-You’ve switched the question – before you were talking about the universe having a purpose, now you change it to Darwinism. So now it’s a different discussion. If you want my answers, they are that Darwinism wasn’t designed and it doesn’t have a purpose (and actually, I have the same view about the universe itself).

Granted they are different questions, but they are related questions. If the universe has no purpose then neither does biodiversity have a purpose.

—–“But if I am wrong, that doesn’t mean a purposeful universe means abandoning a purposeless Darwinism – you need to think thinks through more.”

If the universe has a purpose, then life has a purpose, which means that Darwinism, which says that life happened without a purpose, is wrong. I have thought it through many times.

“What does it matter whether purpose was injected by man or someone else such as a creator? Whether by us or a creator, its been injected and one way or the other it’s artificial.

If the designer created the universe for a purpose, then its purpose is obviously not artificial. Suppose, for example, that you were made for a purpose. That would mean that you have a destiny that you could either embrace or ignore, and it would matter a great deal whether or not you chose acknowledge that fact. On the other hand, if you were not made for a purpose, then it really wouldn’t matter what you do. Poor little creatures that we are, we could not change that reality by getting excited about baseball or science. We would be deluding ourselves by trying to inject meaning when meaning isn’t there. That would indeed be an example of an artificial purpose.

I said I was clear…But you should know this by now since you have been around this site for a few months.

Thanks for your response.

I am not saying that they “express” the preference, [if only they would be so honest] I am saying that they “exhibit” the preference at those times when they seek to challenge the rules of reason. Why would you ask me to provide a link to some far away place after I cited an example right here on this thread. Indeed, every Darwinist that visits this site tries to escape the law of causation by referring to counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics, clinging to the futile hope that some modern theory could invalidate the principle of causation and free them up to make illogical propositions. Do you want me to name names?

The degree to which quantum physics describes events that may be said to be acausal has little bearing upon evolutionary theory, which can be accommodated at a macroscopic level without reference to quantum effects. Because evolutionary biology as it stands can be comfortably accommodated both within a macroscopic world and within a deterministic world, no motivation to advance putatively acausal facets of quantum physics arises within the context of a discussion of biological evolution.

(IIRC, discussion of acausality in quantum physics instead earlier arose, at least to the extent to which I have participated, not in the context of a discussion of the particulars of evolution but rather in the context of challenges to your assertion that a collection of self-evident truths culminates in a “proof” of the existence of a personal God, a proof I personally find tautological and defective for many additional reasons that have nothing to do with QM.)

At a broader level, the proposition that undirected naturalistic forces can create information and design life is counterintuitive, yet every Darwinist here prefers it.

Whether one finds the propositions of evolutionary biology intuitive or counterintuitive is quite in the eye of the beholder. For example, my own general intuition is that once replicating organisms emerged on earth, a panoply of complexity and diversity generated by unguided variation and selection, including exquisitely complex adaptions at every level, was not only possible but inevitable. But I am not arguing for the correctness of that position on the basis of that intuition (my intuition is has no more worth than yours for that purpose); rather, I am reporting this because this empties your example of content, at least with respect to this particular “Darwinist,” and I would say for many others as well. I embrace a viewpoint that, from where I sit, is both intuitively satisfactory and almost certainly true on the basis of the evidence, and I would argue that most of those who embrace evolutionary biology as a progressing science feel as I do. Therefore an assertion that I and like-minded persons exemplify the embrace of and preference for the counter-intuitive out of other motivations is simply false.

Of course, neither you nor I know how the first replicating organisms originated. In that domain as well, neither my intuition that this was also an unguided natural event nor yours that it was the result of a designing agent can be dispositive. However, I would argue that only the first is amenable to scientific investigation, given the constraints of methodological naturalism (insert World War III here).

What I was hoping you would provide is an examplar of an argument within evolutionary biology that is defective specifically due to a failure (you claim a motivated failure) to observe the “rules of right reason”, as you submit above. I’m not aware of any posit with evolutionary biology that hinges upon necessary violations of causality, nor of the law of non-contradiction, nor of your postulate that both the universe or our minds are rational, etc. Yet you have submitted that greater problems arise within evolutionary theory due to such failures than to deficiencies of evidence. Even were your suggestion correct that Darwinists are motivated to embrace counter-intuitive theories and findings, it fails to provide a specific example of the impact of such a failure of “right reason” within evolutionary theory.