Darwinism: An Embarrassment for Legitimate Science

_{Gil Dodgen

July 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

I write this post from a hotel room in Livermore, California, home of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where my company has sent me for advanced training in computational fluid dynamics using LS-DYNA, arguably the most advanced finite element analysis program ever devised, originally at LLNL in the 1970s for the development and analysis of variable-yield nuclear weapons.

I have a particular interest in LLNL because my father worked on the Manhattan A-bomb Project during WWII, and was the founder and director of an experimental nuclear reactor at Washington State University, which has been named in his honor.

Here is some info from the LLNL website:

For more than half a century, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied cutting-edge science and technology to enhance national security.
Origins. The Laboratory was established in 1952 at the height of the Cold War to meet urgent national security needs by advancing nuclear weapons science and technology. Renowned physicists E.O. Lawrence and Edward Teller argued for the creation of a second laboratory to augment the efforts of the laboratory at Los Alamos.

The people who developed this technology are legitimate scientists. Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about. Compare the accomplishments of the LLNL scientists and developers of LS-DYNA to those of people like Dawkins and his “weasel” program.

Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.

Comments

Elizabeth - "No, and I didn’t say that it did. My answer, to my number 3 was; teleonomy – by which I mean the intrinsic function an entity may have in maintaining the persistence, over time, of the whole of which it forms a part." However, this answer doesn't really make sense. The concept of ID may have extrascientific implications but, then again, so does Darwinian evolution. If something appears to have a purpose, then why deny that it has a purpose? "Four points: First : in a well-adapted population, more mutations will be deleterious than beneficial. This proportion will change if the environment changes until a new optimum is reached. This is what adaptation is." However, the data gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and at least 70 years of mutation breeding have shown that mutations cannot transform a species into an entirely new one. The research coincides with the laws of probability. The law of recurrent variation states that genetically properly defined species have boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations. I can remember seeing the 'Drosophilia' fruit flies illustrated in books. They were mutants, but none of the mutations were beneficial, and none of the mutations produced a new species. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by arrtificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent, purposeless process would do a better job? Common sense tells us otherwise. "Second: deleterious mutations tend not to propagate through the population – near neutral mutations form a population pool that facilitates adaptation if the environment changes –at which point, what was slightly deleterious may become beneficial, and vice versa." But mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. And if the environment doesn't change, as in a closed laboratory, the deleterious mutations prove nothing. "Third: No, mutations do not provide a purpose." They're almost an evolutionary dead end. They show deformities in plants and animals, but they provide no real evidence that these deformities could somehow be beneficial to the species, and they do not show how the species would evolve into a new species. "Fourth: reptile-to-bird is not a species change. All birds (aves) are members of the clade Reptilia. Speciation occurs when a single population divides into two subpopulations occupying different environments, and each subpopulation adapts to its own environment independently. This process will include selection of the best performing mutations (alleles) in the new environment, and may even eventually involve new genes." According to Wikipedia, birds are classified as follows: Animalia (kingdom), Chordata (phylum), Availae (branch), and Aves (species). They are most assuredly not members of the clade Reptilia. Birds are, by definition: feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic, egg-laying vertebrate animals. Reptiles are scaled, cold-blooded animals. While both species lay eggs, only birds incubate theirs; birds have a brood spot on their breast (an area without feathers) that contains a network of blood vessels which gives warmth to the eggs. Birds' feathers are another matter. Feather shafts contain rows of barbs which have barbules, which in turn have hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. Feathers are great insulators and airfoils. The differences between reptilian scales and bird feathers is pretty large. Also consider that bird bones are hollow and thin while reptilian bones are solid. A bird's respiratory system differs from a reptile's as well. Birds have a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs during inhalation and exhalation, similar to water going through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries is flowing in the opposite direction, and this countercurrent of air and blood provides the bird with an 'air-cooled engine' allowing them to breathe thinner air at higher altitudes during migration. "Yes. But it is, nonetheless, “selection." As I understand it, natural selection favors the life-forms best suited to the environment and, as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. These isolated groups would eventually develop into new species. As previously noted, decades of research into mutations has not proven that they are capable of changing a species into another species. Natural selection might be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it's not creating anything new. Researchers studying the famous Darwin finches on the Galapagos islands noted as much. They're still finches. They might be different breeds of finches but they are all finches, and there is absolutely no evidence that they are anywhere close to becoming anything else. In fact, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbes wrote in 1987 in 'Nature' that they had seen a reversal in the direction of selection. They also noted interbreeding between species, which they believed might cause a fusion of two of the species into just one. The fact that the finches are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods used to define 'species' and also exposes the fact that some prestigious scientific academies aren't above reporting evidence in a biased manner. 'No, that’s not what I mean. Let me clarify: I mean that it is possible to consider the function of an entity (of a protein for instance) as being an intrinsic property deriving from its role in promoting the persistence – maintaining – the whole of which it forms a part, rather than being something that necessarily requires assignment by an external purposeful agent (using a rock as a seat, for instance, or whittling a stick to catch ants). This kind of intrinsic purpose, or function, is called teleonomic function, to distinguish it from the kind of intentional purposefulness we ascribe to beings like ourselves when we design functional tools to serve our own needs (not the needs of the tools!)" This resembles, I think, an instance of 'not seeing the forest for the trees.' The evolution of the genetic machinery (amino acids to proteins to cells) is rife with speculation. Without the genetic code in place to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select! This is what Dr. Behe was trying to get across in his 1996 book, "Darwin's Black Box". There is nothing in the scientific literature (either an experimental attempt or a detailed model) that explains how the cell 'evolved' bit by bit. In biology, certain things apparently do occur by chance, but this does not mean that the complex molecular machinery in cells and inherent in all life arose by change; that argument simply isn't logical.Barb_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Hi Chris!
Hello again, Lizzie. In response to your post, 56, on this thread. First of all, did you ever see this post on another thread? https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-387290 I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t, given the sheer volume of posts addressed to you. In it, I made some observations about atheistic claims to meaning and morality, that also shed light on things we’ve touched on in this thread, that you have not yet responded to.
Sorry I did miss that one. I’m trying to get into the habit of bookmarking threads, but I lost track of that one! Will try to get back to it.
A couple of things you should know about me. First, I’m not any sort of Christian. Second, my partner (also my daughters’ mother) is an atheist. Perspective: it’s a wonderful thing! Now then, when you tell me you have a sense of meaning and morality in your life, I don’t doubt your sincerity. However, I have absolutely no doubt that you are borrowing all sense of meaning and morality from religion. You’ve spent most of your life believing in a religion and you were brought up surrounded by religious influence: parents, teachers and other influential institutions. My partner is the same (though, she was brought up as an atheist because her father – an excellent man who I value highly – is an atheist too). Many atheists get by, entirely irrationally, because they don’t question why it is that they are borrowing morality and meaning from religion. That is why many atheists will be rewarded in the afterlife. Furthermore, being religious does not mean that we can start looking forward to rewards in the afterlife too. In fact, those of us who are religious, particularly the ones who have learned a bit about the subject, are in for an even tougher test. And many of us will fail and there will be rather unpleasant consequences in the afterlife.
OK! Well, yours are a long way from my own views, or any that I have ever held, but I readily agree that I have borrowed morality from religion, partly from my own (Christianity – I remain a fan of Jesus!), but also from others. But I haven’t borrowed from them because they have “authority” – indeed I’ve cherry-picked shamelessly, guided by what I regard as both an innate sense of what is fair (which I once, and perhaps still do, call “that of God in every one” after George Fox, and which I think we derive from our evolutionary heritage, along with some less desirable characteristics, which I once would have called Original Sin), and fairly simple logic – if we all do what benefits everyone, everyone will benefit, including me. So I do think the claim that if we didn’t have divine ordained morality there would be no reason to behave is simply wrong. I don’t think there is any clear divine-ordained morality, as the very different ethical precepts associated with different religions, and the same religions at different times, would seem to show. Whereas most cultures have come up, independently, with the Golden Rule. So it seems likely to me that the Golden Rule the universal that what people tend to come up with, left to themselves, whereas the diversity of other ethical imperatives (don’t eat shrimp/pig/beef/meat on Fridays, have sex with the wrong people, at the wrong time, with the wrong orifices, show your hair, cut your beard, give blood, show your face etc) suggest much more local origins. So, contrary to what I often hear, I think that what I might call “natural ethics” is actually much more objective, and universal, than “religions ethics” which seem to give far more scope for subjective decisions or cultural mores to influence. In fact, I’d say that religion may well be more parasitical (at its best!) on “natural ethics” (Jesus’s version, or at least Matthew’s version of Jesus’s version of the Golden Rule is my favourite, but may originate with Rabbi Hillel) rather than the other way round.
But many atheists, thanks to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers and Dennett, truly do not believe in any meaning or purpose to existence. And morality is only something they do when they want to do it, not when they don’t want to do it. I have met them face to face and conversed with them online. Most of them are basically depressed. And then you have the atheists who haven’t given much thought to the matter. They just believe that this life is all you get and that you really can get away with murder: and should do so when it suits! They don’t really care about the difference between right and wrong. They are just very, very selfish. And, in the absence of life’s comforts, such people can be very, very dangerous.
Well, all I can say is that that’s not my impression. I mean I know that Hitchens and Myers can be very ascerbic, and Dawkins always strikes me as a bit of a knowall (which I find annoying because he is often importantly wrong), but I have a real soft spot for Dennett, who certainly believes that existence has meaning and existence, albeit one we make for ourselves. Indeed, that is my main counterpoint – that meaning doesn’t have be assigned to life from outside – we assign our own meanings to the world and to our lifes, and develop our own goals and principles and purposes. I think it’s amazing that we do this, and that awe I feel at the human capacity to rise above the self and see ourselves as part of a greater whole – humanity, earth, the universe – is what I recognise in myself as worship – literally (as I was always told): worthship. Yes, people can be very selfish, but I don’t find much correlation with religious belief, quite honestly. And I’ve found that those with the fewest of “life’s comforts” have often been the most generous. There’s a poem by Stevie Smith that I once set to music, I loved it so much:
Man aspires To good, To love Sighs; Beaten, corrupted, dying In his own blood lying Yet heaves up an eye above Cries, Love, love. It is his virtue needs explaining, Not his failing. Away, melancholy, Away with it, let it go.
http://www.artofeurope.com/smith/smi2.htm Read the whole thing. You may hate it, but it pretty well sums up my beliefs :)
If the theory of evolution was universally thrown out and replaced by Intelligent Design theory then, soon after, most of the various atheists referred to above, even the indifferent ones, would be forced to reassess their worldview because whether or not it is based on a lack of belief in the Creator or a belief that there is no Creator, their worldview affects all of their values and objectives. But most atheists do not want to do that and so, while they can resist, with prejudice, the scientific evidence that undermines their worldview, they will. Seriously Lizzie, are you deep-down honestly only resisting ID theory for purely scientific reasons? If so, what do you really think is causing the huge chasm between your interpretation of the scientific facts and our interpretation of them?
Well, you may be right about what would happen to atheism if that happened, I’m not sure, it’s hard for me to imagine. I don’t think it’s true, but I guess I don’t know. Tbh it’s pretty unknowable, because from my point of view it feels a bit like it would feel to you if I said, I dunno, that it became clear tomorrow that God was an actual physical entity, but that he was a huge tentacles beast called Cthulhu, who cared nothing for us, and actually ate babies for breakfast, that would presumably entail a huge reassessment of your world view – are you sure that this is not why you are resisting this theory? Well, that’s a silly example, but it’s hard to express, I guess, just how sure most of us are that Intelligent Design theory just doesn’t work, and that standard evolutionary theory essentially does! Yes, it would be a big cognitive shock to find that we were wrong, but the biggest shock, I suggest, would not finding that atheism was false (if indeed, the alternative theory entailed that hypothesis) but that a theory so beautiful could be wrong. Which brings me to your last points: Actually I have two reasons for “resisting ID theory”. One is straightforward and has two parts: I think that evolutionary theory makes good sense, and that the objections posed to it are partly objections to straw men, and partly simply flawed; the second part is that I find the ID argument (well, specifically Dembski’s argument) fundamentally flawed (statistically, apart from anything else, and there is else.). However, I will confess to another reason: I simply don’t think it makes sense theologically. That might sound odd from an atheist, but what I mean is that the God it would imply existed is not a God I would be inclined to worship, or even consider a god! It has always seemed to me that if there was a god-type answer to the question: why is there anything rather than nothing, then the God that would be the answer to that question could not be detectable within his/her own creation – if everything is held in being by God, why would God be more detectable in some bits of the world than of others? The charge is often made here about evolutionary theory (one that I think is false, in fact, but that’s bye the bye) that “a theory that explains everything explains nothing”. This is true. A theory that explains everything can explain nothing. Explanations work because they are specific – they take an “if...then” form. IF I let go the cannonball, THEN it will fall to earth; IF I increase the resistance in this circuit than THEN current will drop. But a theory that accounted for everything (“IF god, THEN everything) then the only think that the theory accounts for is the simple fact of existence. There is nothing it can explain within the world because everything within the world is explained by the theory. However, if we can detect an Intelligent Designer within the world, then it seems to me that that designer only accounts for part of the world, not all of it - that there are parts of the world s/he does not influence and parts s/he does. Worse, this designer is inferred to step in to give flagella to help bacteria kill hundreds of thousands of human children, yet cannot step in to give those children immunity to that bacteria. So, even if this Intelligent Designer could be shown to be real, I would not grant him/her divine status (i.e. I would have no grounds to extrapolate it to the Creator of All), and, more importantly, nor would I regard him/her as something to be admired, let alone worshipped. In fact, if Intelligent Design was shown to be true, I’d react rather as I would if someone told me that Cthulhu was real! OK, it’s getting late, and I’ve babbled enough for one night, and I still haven’t tackled your last and best question:
If so, what do you really think is causing the huge chasm between your interpretation of the scientific facts and our interpretation of them
Probably because I don’t know the answer! I’m interested in finding out though, which is why I’m enjoying being here (despite getting on people’s nerves). I do suspect that (as you do with regard to evolution) that fear has something to do with it – that Darwin’s Idea really was Dangerous – that it opens the door to atheism, and atheism is terrifying. But I’m sure that’s not the whole truth, and may even only be a small part of the truth, if a part at all. I have a better theory that has to do with Obviousness. When I was studying psychology, the lecturer once gave out a questionnaire with statements on it and we had to say whether we thought the answers were obviously true. At the end, he asked for a show of hands for those who had scored 80% or more of the statements as “obviously true”. The vast majority of the students raised their hands. Then he told us that half of the questionnaires had statements that were the opposite of the other half. But each had been supported by some kind of reasoning that suggested that the statement was just common sense. It was very salutary! It is easier than you think to be persuaded that an argument is “obviously true”. And once you are persuaded, it is much harder to be unpersuaded. Things that seem “obviously true” at one time seem to get stored in a way that gives them added tenacity when you are later faced with counter-reasoning. In fact, I think the old adage that “you can’t be reasoned out of a view you weren’t reasoned into” is actually false. I think it’s far harder to be reasoned out of a view you were reasoned into, because, after all, you have reason on your side! Now, I am aware that this argument cuts both ways, and it was intended to. I think that is a substantial cause for the chasm – both sides regard their view as “obviously” true, and tend to regard the other side as dishonest/obtuse/evasive/indoctrinated or whatever. And both sides do it! You’ve heard me rant about it here. The challenge then, is to find out where the really differences lie – to find the unchallenged assumptions that we each regard as “obvious” but which may not be as “obvious” as we have always thought. OK, enough! Time for bed! Nice, as ever, to talk to you :) LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Hello again, Lizzie. In response to your post, 56, on this thread. First of all, did you ever see this post on another thread? https://uncommondescent.com/science/why-there-is-no-scientific-explanation-for-evil/comment-page-2/#comment-387290 I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t, given the sheer volume of posts addressed to you. In it, I made some observations about atheistic claims to meaning and morality, that also shed light on things we’ve touched on in this thread, that you have not yet responded to. A couple of things you should know about me. First, I’m not any sort of Christian. Second, my partner (also my daughters’ mother) is an atheist. Perspective: it’s a wonderful thing! Now then, when you tell me you have a sense of meaning and morality in your life, I don’t doubt your sincerity. However, I have absolutely no doubt that you are borrowing all sense of meaning and morality from religion. You’ve spent most of your life believing in a religion and you were brought up surrounded by religious influence: parents, teachers and other influential institutions. My partner is the same (though, she was brought up as an atheist because her father - an excellent man who I value highly - is an atheist too). Many atheists get by, entirely irrationally, because they don’t question why it is that they are borrowing morality and meaning from religion. That is why many atheists will be rewarded in the afterlife. Furthermore, being religious does not mean that we can start looking forward to rewards in the afterlife too. In fact, those of us who are religious, particularly the ones who have learned a bit about the subject, are in for an even tougher test. And many of us will fail and there will be rather unpleasant consequences in the afterlife. But many atheists, thanks to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers and Dennett, truly do not believe in any meaning or purpose to existence. And morality is only something they do when they want to do it, not when they don’t want to do it. I have met them face to face and conversed with them online. Most of them are basically depressed. And then you have the atheists who haven’t given much thought to the matter. They just believe that this life is all you get and that you really can get away with murder: and should do so when it suits! They don’t really care about the difference between right and wrong. They are just very, very selfish. And, in the absence of life’s comforts, such people can be very, very dangerous. If the theory of evolution was universally thrown out and replaced by Intelligent Design theory then, soon after, most of the various atheists referred to above, even the indifferent ones, would be forced to reassess their worldview because whether or not it is based on a lack of belief in the Creator or a belief that there is no Creator, their worldview affects all of their values and objectives. But most atheists do not want to do that and so, while they can resist, with prejudice, the scientific evidence that undermines their worldview, they will. Seriously Lizzie, are you deep-down honestly only resisting ID theory for purely scientific reasons? If so, what do you really think is causing the huge chasm between your interpretation of the scientific facts and our interpretation of them?Chris Doyle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
My answer, to my number 3 was; teleonomy – by which I mean the intrinsic function an entity may have in maintaining the persistence, over time, of the whole of which it forms a part.
Look up the terms teleology and teleological. Seriously.Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler,
I am sure Dawkins is saying what he means. What I am saying is that what Dawkins is saying is false.
Ahh...ok. I just got the impression from your post that you were not sure what Dawkins was getting at. Given my previous comment, I hope you will elaborate on what you think Dawkins is wrong about. Thanks!Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler,
Doveton @ 91 “The later, “Design” strikes me as completely beyond science’s ability to investigate.” Of course it is. It’s true by definition. Just don’t go claiming, and I don’t know that you do, but Dawkins does, that science investigates everything that there is to be investigated. Here’s how that argument typically goes. Science is great at explaining the natural/material/physical (take your pick) world SO that’s all there is!!! It does not follow. Not by a long shot.
A couple things to consider: 1) How is something like Design (Big D) that is, as you say, "outside nature", true by definition? 2) If Design (Big D) is true by definition as you claim, then what is there for science to discover about it? 3) If there is nothing for science to discover about Design (Big D), in what way would you suggest science investigate it and further, what would you expect science to be able to explain about it? Am truly at a loss concerning your complaint since it appears that you agree science can't investigate this "Design" and agree that science can only explain what it can investigate. What else would you suggest?
Regarding the apparent design… The point, which may not be as obvious as I think it is, is that for there to be “fake design” there has to be “real design.”
I'm not sure what you mean by "fake design". Apparent design is not fake; it is a characteristic resemblance some object has to a known designed object.
And that’s a PROBLEM for someone who claims there is no such thing as real design. Dawkins is a moron. I’ve read almost every word he’s ever written and ten people could take a career untangling the lies he routinely spews.
Well, since I'm not sure what you actually mean by "fake design", I'll hold off on agreeing or disagreeing until I do.Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Doveton @ 91 "Dawkins is saying what he means – complex things may well “appear” to be designed when just looked at, but if we dig deeper (e.g., look at the actual evidence) they are just products of natural processes." I am sure Dawkins is saying what he means. What I am saying is that what Dawkins is saying is false.tgpeeler_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Doveton @ 91 "The later, “Design” strikes me as completely beyond science’s ability to investigate." Of course it is. It's true by definition. Just don't go claiming, and I don't know that you do, but Dawkins does, that science investigates everything that there is to be investigated. Here's how that argument typically goes. Science is great at explaining the natural/material/physical (take your pick) world SO that's all there is!!! It does not follow. Not by a long shot. Regarding the apparent design... The point, which may not be as obvious as I think it is, is that for there to be "fake design" there has to be "real design." And that's a PROBLEM for someone who claims there is no such thing as real design. Dawkins is a moron. I've read almost every word he's ever written and ten people could take a career untangling the lies he routinely spews.tgpeeler_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Eugene S
Could I ask you two questions: 1. who are we? 2. what is evidence? To me, substantial evidence of your existence is given by the comments you are typing in and living at this website. They are intelligent enough to me and I can reliably tell them from something like that: 877675577heudg¬¬¬%%%dflwjhdfo23rufofy4fioghdcdcbvbvbvbvvbrfgryffi9rgfi91ftpftrfttf.
Let me respond anyway, in reverse order. Yes. I would agree that you have pretty good evidence of your existence and you have pretty good evidence of mine. And I'd say that evidence is data that supports (or infirms) a hypothesis. If your hypothesis is that my posts are typed by a human being called Elizabeth Liddle, you can make certain predictions arising from that hypothesis and test them against data. If the predictions tend to support your hypothesis then you can consider your hypothesis good to go. At least until you get strong infirming evidence (that I am really Richard Dawkins, perhaps). That answers your second question. Not only that, but you can also infer that I am an English-speaking [moderately] intelligent human being, capable of encoding ideas in English sentences that can be decoded by an English speaker who reads them. Were I to consistently post posts like your example, you might infer that the author of my posts was not a human being, but that I'd left a reply window open and my cat had gone to sleep on my keyboard. So that answers your first question. I hope anyway.
I am beginning to lose hope in conversations like that :( I am beginning to think that there is no intention to hear the opponent’s opinion. And this is where science ceases to exist, to me.
Oh, chin up, it's not that bad :) Yes, it's frustrating when one feels unheard, but I'll try to listen. I'd really like to hear your answers to my questions above anyway :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Eugene S
Absolutely. Macroevolution is a religion. No argumentation matters regardless of how sound or obvious it is. The answer is, there always is a theoretical possibility for preadaptation :)
Could perhaps give an example of a sound argumentation and the kind of answer you receive?
Evolutionists will always believe in 10^-140 probability :)
No, I don't think so. "Evolutionists" are far more likely to dispute the probability calculation than argue that something of such low probability might have happened. I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood something here. Again could you give an example? Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, What I mean by it is: we have no evidence". Could I ask you two questions: 1. who are we? 2. what is evidence? To me, substantial evidence of your existence is given by the comments you are typing in and living at this website. They are intelligent enough to me and I can reliably tell them from something like that: 877675577heudg¬¬¬%%%dflwjhdfo23rufofy4fioghdcdcbvbvbvbvvbrfgryffi9rgfi91ftpftrfttf. I am beginning to lose hope in conversations like that :( I am beginning to think that there is no intention to hear the opponent's opinion. And this is where science ceases to exist, to me.Eugene S_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Chris (comment #8), Absolutely. Macroevolution is a religion. No argumentation matters regardless of how sound or obvious it is. The answer is, there always is a theoretical possibility for preadaptation :) Evolutionists will always believe in 10^-140 probability and deceive themselves. Astonishing. Away with common sense :)Eugene S_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Tgpeeler,
I’m saying that Design is outside of nature and that design is inside of nature and that the little d design is grounded in the capital D design. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist (NMP) denies the existence of Design outside of nature and also denies the existence of real design in nature. Thus the linguistic and logical butchery of the language – apparent design, indeed.
It seems to be rather straight forward to me. Design (little d) is something assumed to exist because some natural things appear to resemble (to some loose extent) things designed by humans that we are all familiar with and understand. Design (Big D) seems to be synonymous with Magic (or maybe Majik if that's your thing) and is thus some property of the supernatural. The former, "design" could potentially be investigated as a quality of natural products by science if a proper hypothesis was proposed for the objective repeatable, consistent, and predictable effect such a characteristic might exhibit. The later, "Design" strikes me as completely beyond science's ability to investigate.
Let me quote Dawkins just to give you proof that I’m not making this up. “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.” From the preface to “The Blind Watchmaker.” So if there is no “real” design how does he know that the apparent design is not real?
I believe Dawkins was merely using the term design to me "form" or "appearance". It's quite clear he doesn't believe organisms are literally designed.
Or this from page 5 of the same book. “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.” All appearances to the contrary? Um, what do scientists usually call “appearances?” Oh yeah, I remember now. They call them DATA.
Dawkins is saying what he means - complex things may well "appear" to be designed when just looked at, but if we dig deeper (e.g., look at the actual evidence) they are just products of natural processes.
From “Philosophic Inquiry” page 388. “Materialism is the naturalistic metaphysics that regards nature as consisting of matter in motion. Whatever is apparently not matter in motion is to be regarded as “mere appearances” of what is matter in motion. All explanation, therefore, in philosophy as well as in science, is to be phrased in terms of the laws now known or yet to be discovered concerning the relationships among the different kinds of matter and the laws of their motion with respect to each other.” I hope this helps you understand my position.
Yes it does. Thank you.
Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle,
And indeed, I would say that by definition, that most atheists would be in rough shape philosophically if naturalism were shown to be false, but then I find that rather question begging anyway.
Well, there is that :) I don’t know, though. I guess if an Michelangelo God-The-Father figure were to appear in the sky and announce that time was up, and we’d better abandon our erroneous Darwinian ways sharpish, yes, I’d be pretty disappointed! Indeed, if the God painted in most of the bible turned out to be unambiguously real, I’d be pretty horrified. I’d believe in him, I guess, but I wouldn’t worship him.
While I completely agree (and this is one reason why I dismissed Christianity some years ago), this is a tangent to what I was getting at. My point was that in a more general sense, I think that atheism is tied to naturalism. That is to say that if there was some concrete objective way of establishing that there was something - anything - beyond the natural, the atheist would be in a conundrum. Why? Because regardless of how one defines atheist - someone who denies outright that there is a God or gods given the evidence, or someone who does not believe in a God or gods due to lack of evidence - atheism comes down to a perspective based upon the perception of reality that includes objective evidence. If that reality were shown to have layers beyond those that could readily be perceived via the senses, either directly or indirectly as a result of the effect of phenomena, such would (I would think) create a condition where in the atheist could no longer comfortably hold that a God or gods could not exist. However, the problem with this conceptual exercise is that it begs the question - it assumes as a premise that some non-natural thing could be detected without being perceived (huh?) and then concludes that such would then imply the actuality of the supernatural, which is really the premise all along.Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Barb – thanks for your response:
Elizabeth, Well, what does an author need: a lexicon, and the ability to select items from the lexicon that suit her purpose. An author also needs a plot and characters, or a writing prompt. It could be an experience he/she had, a friend’s experience, or something he/she read about and wanted to write. So here are three things we need (at least) 1: a lexicon – a variety of possible sequences 2: The ability to select 3: A purpose to guide the selection. Natural selection is, by definition, blind. So where does its purpose come from? A thousand monkeys banging away at typewriters will probably never write a Shakespearean sonnet or even a complete sentence. Humans have a level of intelligence far higher than animals and can comprehend what they want to write, how they want to write it, and when and where they will write it. Natural selection does not explicitly have a purpose.
No, and I didn’t say that it did. My answer, to my number 3 was; teleonomy – by which I mean the intrinsic function an entity may have in maintaining the persistence, over time, of the whole of which it forms a part.
I suggest that: 1: is provided by mutations Mutations, though cause more harm than good. There are many scientific articles on this point, and no doubt you’ve read quite a few. Mutations also do not provide a purpose nor do they show explicitly a species changing (from reptile to bird, for example) that would allow for the variety of life we see today.
Four points: First : in a well-adapted population, more mutations will be deleterious than beneficial. This proportion will change if the environment changes until a new optimum is reached. This is what adaptation is. Second: deleterious mutations tend not to propagate through the population - near neutral mutations form a population pool that facilitates adaptation if the environment changes –at which point, what was slightly deleterious may become beneficial, and vice versa. Third: No, mutations do not provide a purpose. Fourth: reptile-to-bird is not a species change. All birds (aves) are members of the clade Reptilia. Speciation occurs when a single population divides into two subpopulations occupying different environments, and each subpopulation adapts to its own environment independently. This process will include selection of the best performing mutations (alleles) in the new environment, and may even eventually involve new genes.
<2: is provided by differential heritable reproduction aka “natural selection” Which, as already noted, is blind and purposeless.
Yes. But it is, nonetheless, “selection.
<3: is the intrinsic “teleonomic” purpose of perpetuating the pattern, either through maintenance or replication Equating reproduction (which is a primitive instinct) to the intelligence needed to plan and write a book is a non sequitur.
No, that’s not what I mean. Let me clarify: I mean that it is possible to consider the function of an entity (of a protein for instance) as being an intrinsic property deriving from its role in promoting the persistence – maintaining - the whole of which it forms a part, rather than being something that necessarily requires assignment by an external purposeful agent (using a rock as a seat, for instance, or whittling a stick to catch ants). This kind of intrinsic purpose, or function, is called teleonomic function, to distinguish it from the kind of intentional purposefulness we ascribe to beings like ourselves when we design functional tools to serve our own needs (not the needs of the tools!)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

That’s a good point, Doveton, but I think the distinction is more apparent than real.
Oh, I completely agree. I was just trying to express what I think I understand his and similar folks' perspective on the subject to be. I've never actually understood the perspective very well. I get that they "feel" fulfilled by their belief in God and the perspective that the world and universe hold a special purpose and meaning for them set forth by God. But I don't understand how they can then conclude that those who don't believe in God (and thus don't feel that special fulfillment from the implication of God's purpose and meaning in all things) must be miserable folks who don't feel anything. Three possibilities come to mind: 1) They are taught to believe such in the face of contrary evidence. 2) Perceiving non-believers that way helps make the belief in God all that much more fulfilling and important. 3) They feel that they themselves would be miserable without God and His Plan and that life would have no meaning or purpose and thus they project that perception onto others. None of those are mutually exclusive. Most interesting to me is the last perspective. Assuming it is valid and that there are folks who think this way (and I'm aware of a few who do) I'm surprised they don't appreciate the Anti Addiction Ignorance Codicil which states that one cannot become addicted to that which one is not aware. In other words, those who have never had ice cream will never crave it and never know what they are missing.Doveton_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
EL @ 70 “We do not have direct access to reality; all we have are models.” Um, how do you know that?
Know that we don't have direct access to reality? Well, studies of perceptual systems - the systems by which we understand the world from the incoming data we receive through our sense and proprioceptive organs - strongly suggest that the brain makes predictions about what sensory information we will receive next, based on what is usually called a "forward model" and then updates this model in the light of new sensory data. This is very well documented in the visual domain, but in other sensory domains as well.
What are the models of, then?
The world - reality.
How do you model something to which you have no direct access?
You fit them to existing data, then use the model to predict new data.
EL “Don’t worry tgpeeler, you’ll find things make a lot more sense this side of the wormhole.” Hardly, on your side of the wormhole first principles change to meet the needs of the moment.
No, they don't. I've given you several examples now of contexts in which science regularly engages with the hypothesis of design and intention - forensic science, archaeology, psychology, neuroscience. It is not true design is outside the domain of science. I've also told you that I think that design is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis for living things, as long as we can derive testable differential predictions for it. This has been done (by Dembski, for instance). The problem, as I see it, is not that Dembski isn't doing science (he is) but that he has failed to operationalise his hypothesis correctly. Specifically, he has failed to correctly specify his null. His design inference, is therefore, in my opinion, unwarranted.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Whoa! Lots of activity here - not to mention engaged reponse on all sides...(Thanks to anyone thoughtfully commenting on my bits..I've received both encouragement and challenges toward sharper thinking.)arkady967_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Well, what does an author need: a lexicon, and the ability to select items from the lexicon that suit her purpose. An author also needs a plot and characters, or a writing prompt. It could be an experience he/she had, a friend's experience, or something he/she read about and wanted to write. So here are three things we need (at least) 1: a lexicon – a variety of possible sequences 2: The ability to select 3: A purpose to guide the selection. Natural selection is, by definition, blind. So where does its purpose come from? A thousand monkeys banging away at typewriters will probably never write a Shakespearean sonnet or even a complete sentence. Humans have a level of intelligence far higher than animals and can comprehend what they want to write, how they want to write it, and when and where they will write it. Natural selection does not explicitly have a purpose. I suggest that: 1: is provided by mutations Mutations, though cause more harm than good. There are many scientific articles on this point, and no doubt you've read quite a few. Mutations also do not provide a purpose nor do they show explicitly a species changing (from reptile to bird, for example) that would allow for the variety of life we see today. 2: is provided by differential heritable reproduction aka “natural selection” Which, as already noted, is blind and purposeless. 3: is the intrinsic “teleonomic” purpose of perpetuating the pattern, either through maintenance or replication Equating reproduction (which is a primitive instinct) to the intelligence needed to plan and write a book is a non sequitur.Barb_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

EL "Don’t worry tgpeeler, you’ll find things make a lot more sense this side of the wormhole." Hardly, on your side of the wormhole first principles change to meet the needs of the moment.tgpeeler_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

EL @ 70 "We do not have direct access to reality; all we have are models." Um, how do you know that? What are the models of, then? How do you model something to which you have no direct access?tgpeeler_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

So we have a candidate author. Sounds more like appealing a book that writes itself by reading from it's own instructions on how to write to explain the book of instructions on writing.Mung_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Barb: I would say: yes, DNA requires an author - so what properties must that author have? Well, what does an author need: a lexicon, and the ability to select items from the lexicon that suit her purpose. So here are three things we need (at least) 1: a lexicon - a variety of possible sequences 2: The ability to select 3: A purpose to guide the selection. I suggest that: 1: is provided by mutations 2: is provided by differential heritable reproduction aka "natural selection" 3: is the intrinsic "teleonomic" purpose of perpetuating the pattern, either through maintenance or replication. So we have a candidate author :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

"But what seems obvious sometimes turns out not to be the case. It seemed obvious that solid things were made of solid stuff all through until we discovered that atoms were mostly empty space." But the chair you're sitting on as you type this post is "solid" enough to hold you, isn't it? True, appearances can sometimes be deceiving. However, we should not simply check our common sense at the door when doing any type of scientific investigation. A book requires an author. DNA, which contains enough information to fill volumes of books in libraries, does not require an author? Really? "It seemed obvious that two moving objects each moving towards each other at a speed of X would have speed relative to each other of 2X, until Einstein showed that this was not the case." Einstein's theories have nothing to do with evolution. Non sequitur. "And to many of us, it turns out to be the case that living things, which seem as though they must have been designed by an intentional designer, could equally – and indeed more plausibly, given that we have no independent evidence for such a designer, nor for any mechanism by which such a designer could implement his/her designs – by brought about by a quasi-design process known as self-replication with modification and heritable differential reproduction." We have no independent evidence? Really? A simple arrowhead requires a maker. A more complicated nuclear weapon obviously requires a maker. But the person making the arrowhead or the nuclear weapon, possessed of intelligence and reasoning, came about by random mutations and natural selection. Sir Isaac Newton, arguably one of (if not the) greatest scientists of all time stated that the human thumb was proof of God's existence.Barb_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Guys, scoffing will get you nowhere. If you have a rebuttal make it. Put up or shut up. tgpeeler:
I have fallen through a worm hole into an alternate universe. I’m arguing with a naturalist who says that design exists in nature, can be detected in nature, and can even be studied as a scientific discipline, BUT, she thinks intelligent design is nonsense. I have to be missing something here. This is just TFF. Mung, I am beginning to sympathize more and more…
Don't worry tgpeeler, you'll find things make a lot more sense this side of the wormhole. Yes, of course design can be investigated by science, and detected (ask any forensic scientist) and its mechanisms delineated. And no, I don't think "Intelligent Design" is nonsense as hypothesis about the origins of life on earth. What I do think is that it is an unsupported hypothesis, and that the arguments called in aid of it are flawed. There is a world of a difference between saying that something can be studied as a scientific discipline (it can) and saying that it is the best hypothesis to explain a particular phenomenon. Glad to have been able to help. Mung: you can do better than this:
One of my favorite questions. How does he know whether something has the appearance of design without having a scientific way to tell whether something really is designed? If ID is not science, neither is “the appearance of design.” And when people claim evolution, or random mutation and natural selection, can create things that have every appearance of being designed, one has to wonder what they are basing that claim on. Personal opinion? Subjective comparisons? Show us the science. And then when you ask for proof, they invariably appeal to a designed computer program. One designed for a purpose. Pathetic.
1: dead easy: it has components that serve some function in the way that components of things known to be designed serve some function intended by the designer. 2: ID is potentially science. That doesn't mean that the science done by ID proponents is good science. My view is that it is flawed science. Nonetheless, some of it is interesting. 3: teleonomy 4: You've had this explained to you over and over: a program that incorporates virtual organisms is designed; the virtual organisms evolve into something that is not designed, in the sense that the form they eventually take was not envisaged by the designer of the program, and may even deeply surprise her. ba77
tgpeeler, LOL, welcome to the ever flexible world of ‘science by Elizabeth’! where the only rules that matter are the ones she decides that matter whenever she wants or needs them to matter!!!
Absolute tosh. g'night guys.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

But even children prefer that their fiction make sense, even if only on its own terms.Ilion_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Mung, you’re much to nice. The answer is “no” … and I figured it out a long time ago.
Yeah, I know you did. And of course I agree. I really do think her true calling is writing children's fiction.Mung_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

So if there is no “real” design how does he know that the apparent design is not real?
One of my favorite questions. How does he know whether something has the appearance of design without having a scientific way to tell whether something really is designed? If ID is not science, neither is "the appearance of design." And when people claim evolution, or random mutation and natural selection, can create things that have every appearance of being designed, one has to wonder what they are basing that claim on. Personal opinion? Subjective comparisons? Show us the science. And then when you ask for proof, they invariably appeal to a designed computer program. One designed for a purpose. Pathetic.Mung_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 69: "Elizabeth, you’re a strange bird indeed. One really has to wonder to what extent you should be taken seriously, if at all." Mung, you're much to nice. The answer is "no" ... and I figured it out a long time ago.Ilion_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Doveton @ 57 "I’m confused by this, Tgpeeler. Are you saying that Dawkin’s insists design is outside of nature or are you insisting that?" I'm saying that Design is outside of nature and that design is inside of nature and that the little d design is grounded in the capital D design. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist (NMP) denies the existence of Design outside of nature and also denies the existence of real design in nature. Thus the linguistic and logical butchery of the language - apparent design, indeed. Let me quote Dawkins just to give you proof that I'm not making this up. "The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design." From the preface to "The Blind Watchmaker." So if there is no "real" design how does he know that the apparent design is not real? Or this from page 5 of the same book. "All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way." All appearances to the contrary? Um, what do scientists usually call "appearances?" Oh yeah, I remember now. They call them DATA. From "Philosophic Inquiry" page 388. "Materialism is the naturalistic metaphysics that regards nature as consisting of matter in motion. Whatever is apparently not matter in motion is to be regarded as "mere appearances" of what is matter in motion. All explanation, therefore, in philosophy as well as in science, is to be phrased in terms of the laws now known or yet to be discovered concerning the relationships among the different kinds of matter and the laws of their motion with respect to each other." I hope this helps you understand my position.tgpeeler_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply