Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

December 2014: Events that made a difference to ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to November 2014 (and to Barry’s suggestion that readers kindly remember Uncommon Descent in their year end giving tax receipt) – via the Donate button (our Christmas stocking) on the main page):

My sense is that we are making some headway against what Leon Wieseltier has referred to as Darwinist dittoheads, and I’d like to point to some more stories, this time from December 2014, that explain why:

The biggest stories this month, unpacked  in more detail here tomorrow:

– Time for serious pursuit of post-Darwinian theory, says new BIO-Complexity paper

– Fake Facebook pages started in an attempt to discredit ID theorists. (People fake Rolexes, not Timexes.)

– Breaking: Article in Nature by cosmologists George Ellis and Joe Silk defends integrity of physics against multiverse, string theory Also, String theory slowly unravelling, supporter concedes. But press on!

But … can physics be above science?

The News desk follows the growth in popularity of the pop science multiverse because it is a fateful decision for fact-free science. There s no evidence for the multiverse, the way that there is evidence for the fine-tuning of our universe. So multiverse proponents are now asking that we abandon traditional standards for evidence, for example Occam’s razor,

Cosmologist George Ellis has elsewhere called the multiverse the most dangerous idea in physics Scientific American. But the matter can be put more strongly than that. It obviates physics. As we said at the time,

Actually, the multiverse will bring physics, as we have known it, to an end.

To make it work, we must abandon basic principles of science. There are already calls, for example, to abandon falsifiability and many have long since given up on Occam’s razor in science.

We could also balance the universe’s books by dumping math, apparently.

Predictably, because the multiverse is promoted despite, not because of, science evidence, it hardly matters when the bubbles burst. Disappointment never lasts long.
New bubbles just get blown on the merest hint of a possibility that there might be evidence some day.

Assuming we can do without real science, the multiverse can be put to all sorts of uses: The “many worlds” multiverse explains problem of evil, some think. But the space program will seem much less attractive if a multiverse approach to reality rules. Even cosmology itself must be less attractive, absent the constraints of the rules of science. One wonders if recent budget cuts relate to that. But of course, there are winners as well as losers in these situations. Why explore when it is perfectly all right to just stay home and make it all up? Indeed, this just in: existence of Zeus proven using multiverse techniques. Well, he’s gotta be out there somewhere, and in at least one universe he is omnipotent enough to get to this universe too.

And let’s face it, in postmodern times, the multiverse is popular. Pop culture promotes it as like “evolution.” (Something you are supposed to believe because it’s cool, without really thinking through the claims, let alone subjecting them to evidence.)

Public broadcasting is getting in on the act. Columbia mathematician Peter Woit thinks it is being promoted by much more dangerously influential sources than Templeton, which is probably true.

The underlying theme of multiverse politics in science, of course, is that a multiverse would discredit fine tuning as a concept. Our universe is merely one that works, amid an arbitrarily large numbers of putative flops. But eliminating basic decision-making principles of science to wish the multiverse into existence strikes some of us as a high price to pay.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

– Speaking of fine-tuning, in December Eric Metaxas wrote on the unlikelihood of our existence. Earth’s size seems fine-tuned, and some make the same claim for the Higgs boson. See also the extreme fine tuning of light.

The Cosmos remake’s finale of course claims there is no fine-tuning of the universe for life, but then the series advocates the multiverse instead, rendering evidence irrelevant.
Here’s Rob Sheldon on the continuing quest to avoid cosmic fine tuning. And here’s Reasonable Faith.

On a lighter note, New Scientist suggests that maybe the universe is supposed to be somewhat ugly, and Huffington Post has announced that it shouldn’t exist.  Not to worry, in another universe it doesn’t exist. And in a third it is really ugly.

Fine-tuning of the universe for life was never disproven; it was ruled out of order on principle.

– Horizontal gene transfer goes big time

From PNAS: What’s wrong with peer review Thanks for noticing, guys.

Scientific American bloggers quit rather than face Orwellian censorship?

– Just for Fun:

Fun but all too real: Conference of fake evolution theories indistinguishable from conference of real ones?

Happy New Year all. Back soon. – O’Leary for News

See also: January 2014: Events that made a difference to ID (My sense is that we are making some headway against what Leon Wieseltier has referred to as Darwinist dittoheads.)

February 2014: Events that made a difference to ID We are definitely past having to care what Christians for Darwin think.

March 2014: Events that made a difference to ID: Old, taken-for-granted “truths” are collapsing; an information theory approach may help us forward.

April 2014: Events that made a difference to ID Despite these developments, naturalists would prefer chaos and nonsense to signals that point away from naturalism.

May 2014: Events that made a difference to ID  BUT then things took a really odd turn: It turned out that everyone who doubts Wade’s race theories is a creationist. Hey, is “creationist” the new “think for yourself”?

June 2014: Events that made a difference to ID In June we began to think seriously about William Dembski’s then upcoming Being as Communion, a more philosophical look at design in nature

July 2014: Events that made a difference to ID  Among many other events, a UD Post where a famous chemist says no scientist understands “macroevolution” passed 200,000 views.

August 2014: Events that made a difference to ID  Famous Darwin follower, Jerry “Why evolution is true” Coyne, was really mad that information theorist William Dembski is allowed to speak at his fort, Fort Chicago University

September 2014: Events that made a difference to ID It was becoming obvious that no one who knows the facts need be defensive about doubting the naturalist spin.

October 2014: Events that made a difference to ID Even establishment science media are now moving to recognize the problems with Darwinian evolution theory.

November 2014: Events that made a difference to ID Not only has the kill-ID bomb not exploded, but lots of people besides us are beginning to notice that fact.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
@StephenB: Factinating stuff: - "extracting knowledge or design information" became - "extracting knowledge and design information". I guess through itelligently designed mutation. Ahahahahaah!
then it is obviously not always about man made objects.
No. It's obvious these are crackpot scientists who believe in time travel. Of course if I'm not anal about applying my particular pet definition, I would look at whether the scientists ACTUALLY think the brain is intelligently designed when they talk about "reverse engineering the brain"! Quote: "...but loosely speaking reverse engineering the brain implies figuring out how it works." I rest my case.JWTruthInLove
January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
I love how our friends deny the obvious, anyone want to bet on what we reverse engineered to build big massive dams? That's right beaver dams. Are beaver dams man made or intelligently designed by another non human intelligence? Then there is the entire new field of biomimicry which really does not give one iota about Darwinism, but an ID field that is benefiting mankind. Keep up the denial, ye of feeble minds....Andre
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
JWTruthInLove Wiki
Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made and re-producing it or reproducing anything based on the extracted information.
Reverse engineering is about "extracting knowledge and design information," but if it is applied to biology or neuroscience, then it is obviously not always about man made objects.StephenB
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
ID predicts that design over time uses both single and multiple inheritance. We know this from observing human designs. It follows that living organisms must be organizable in a non-nested hierarchy, i.e., a tree of life that is mostly nested but with many non-nested exceptions. These exceptions are known in software design as multiple inheritance. The Darwinian hypothesis, by contrast, originally predicted a strictly non-nested hierarchy but had to do some furious backpedalling when it became clear from the genetic evidence that this was not the case.Mapou
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Bob O'H at 16: I ran your list by someone who knows a bit of the background of BI, and their response was: -- He’s ducking the issue. He has many more than 5 collaborators. I can’t even say how many without looking up the papers themselves (when there are more than three they get listed as et al). So he needs to compare apples to apples. At the BI, 2 papers are divided by 5 people to his 8 papers divided by at least 23 people. If he wants to count apples. -- We'll see what he comes up with next.News
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
@StephenB:
the researcher must first either believe that biological organisms are designed or else draw an inference to design based on evidence.
Wiki: Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made and re-producing it or reproducing anything based on the extracted information.
"I know where I came from — but where did all you zombies come from?"
How is reverse engineering of the brain done? Wikipedia defines reverse engineering as "the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made." The brain isn't man-made, but loosely speaking reverse engineering the brain implies figuring out how it works. (...) The process of reverse-engineering the cerebral tissue can be roughly divided into three distinct stages - data acquisition, modelling, and simulation. (...)
JWTruthInLove
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
Graham2
You are assuming anything biological is designed. I will even concede that for the argument.
What I believe has nothing to do with it. In order to apply reverse engineering to biology, the researcher must first either believe that biological organisms are designed or else draw an inference to design based on evidence. One can't reverse engineer something that hasn't been engineered. That should be obvious. A Darwinist cannot reverse engineer anything in biology because he doesn't believe that biological organisms are engineered. Again, this should be obvious.
Now, people have been figuring out how our bodily organs (the heart/circulation etc) worked for ages. Davinci had a go at it.
I have already explained that reverse engineering is not simply the process of figuring out how things work. It is the process of looking for design features in order to understand why it was designed that way. It is an attempt to think the designer's thoughts after him. Hence, the word "reverse."
I don’t know why you single out the brain, I would guess that significant advances in knowledge of the brain are fairly recent, but so what. ?
Why are you answering a question with a question? I asked you to defend your claim and provide evidence that the "ancients" applied reverse engineering to neuro-science?
In the end, you haven’t even attempted to answer my original question. Obfuscation, red herrings and oil-soaked, flaming straw men (sorry, been near KF too long).
On the contrary, I provided a very good answer. You simply ignored the point and changed the subject, as I knew you would. However, I can point to many other improvements that ID has made. Among other things, ID has exposed the hypocrisy and anti-scientific bias inherent in methodological naturalism. Meanwhile, you have still not answered my question. Can you show me how full scale Darwinian evolution has contributed anything at all to mankind? Since you are reluctant to answer questions, I will answer this one for you. Full scale Darwinian evolution has contributed absolutely nothing to the betterment of mankind.StephenB
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
SB: You are assuming anything biological is designed. I will even concede that for the argument. Now, people have been figuring out how our bodily organs (the heart/circulation etc) worked for ages. Davinci had a go at it. I don't know why you single out the brain, I would guess that significant advances in knowledge of the brain are fairly recent, but so what. ? In the end, you haven't even attempted to answer my original question. Obfuscation, red herrings and oil-soaked, flaming straw men (sorry, been near KF too long). I give up.Graham2
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Graham2
‘reverse engineering’ is just a fancy phrase to describe a process of investigation, but we can suppose that it is something special.
Reverse engineering is the process by which knowledge or design information is obtained from designed objects. What is it about the words “designed objects” that you do not understand?
The ancients were doing this a thousand years ago for gods sake.
Show me where the ancients applied the principles of reverse engineering to neuroscience. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your answer. Name one good thing that full-scale Darwinian evolution has done for mankind.StephenB
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
SB: 'reverse engineering' is just a fancy phrase to describe a process of investigation, but we can suppose that it is something special. The ancients were doing this a thousand years ago for gods sake. Now, what has ID given us ?Graham2
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Graham2
You can investigate anything … designed or not.
You can "investigate" all you like using whatever methods you like, but you cannot use the method of reverse engineering without design technology. Graham2
This has been done for ever, and owes nothing to the ID movement.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of reverse engineering and its relationship with design. It is not synonymous with "investigating," it is a particular kind of investigation. It cannot be reconciled with natural processes. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear from you on the subject of how Darwinian evolution has ever done anything for mankind.StephenB
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Box: I asked first. The tenor of the thread is some sort of summary of a year in the life of ID, so it seems reasonable to ask what has ID achieved (even if its not offered). Lets suppose that Evolution achieved nothing, my question still stands: What has ID contributed ?Graham2
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
StephenB: Can you provide me with even one example of how Darwinian evolution grand scale ever contributed anything to anybody or anything, medical or otherwise?
Graham2: Uhm ... Uhm ... [*crickets*]
Box
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Here's a classic example. Dr. Ohno, coming from a Darwinist paradigm assumed that non-coding DNA must be “fossil” genes, non-functional leftovers from evolution. In other words, junk. The scientific community largely accepted this explanation. In contrast, the ID paradigm simply assumes that if something appears designed, it should be studied as if it were. In this case, ID would assume that there is an unknown purpose to this same DNA, and would study it as such. So far the ID position has been vindicated, leaving Darwinists to stubbornly defend their position on an ever-shrinking set of non-coding DNA as "junk." Now, pragmatically speaking, which paradigm hindered scientific progress in this example? Darwinism or ID? -QQuerius
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
SB: You can investigate anything ... designed or not. This has been done for ever, and owes nothing to the ID movement. My question still stands: What has ID contributed ? Put another way, what knowledge has ID created since its inception (1990?) that didn't exist before ? If you cant provide an answer, then I will provide one.Graham2
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Graham2
This they could have done with or without the help of ID.
No, they could not have done that. You can't reverse engineer something that wasn't engineered. --- "it is to deduce design features from products with little or no additional knowledge about the procedures involved in their original production." You have not yet told me what Darwinian evolution has ever contributed to mankind.StephenB
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
SB: This they could have done with or without the help of ID. Its exactly the same process of investigating anything ... figuring out how it works. If the term ID was never mentioned, we would be in exactly the same place. ID says 'its designed'. Has it said any more than that ? What results have been produced by ID that help us ? BA77 cant help. Can you ?Graham2
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Graham2
Could you summarise in a sentence or 2 (no more!) what ID has contributed to increase our understanding of the world
In a sentence or two??? OK. ID medical researchers and surgeons can reverse engineer the brain's design in order to assist in the diagnostic process. Darwinian evolution is totally useless in that context. Can you provide me with even one example of how Darwinian evolution grand scale ever contributed anything to anybody or anything, medical or otherwise?StephenB
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Graham2, I was suppose to give a short summary because you are too lazy to read the original posts??? :) HMMM, can you please tell me exactly what law I would be breaking, and what the penalty would be, if I don't feel inclined to do so and tell you to go soak your head for expecting me to do so??? Other than that, Have a nice weekend! :) No Doubt - It's My Life - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubvV498pyIMbornagain77
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
BA77: You still haven't given us a short (!) summary of how ID has improved our understanding of the world around us. All your bloviating notwithstanding.Graham2
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith:
Nobody is demanding much from ID-proponents other than a coherent hypothesis with entailments that could at least in theory be falsified as:a minimum to permit consideration of “ID” as a scientific endeavor.
Unlike your position ID has done that. Obviously the issue is your willful ignorance.Joe
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith, the 'crazy man' gets up and leaves the bus because the 'sane person' who just tried to sit next to him has not the first clue what he is babbling about.bornagain77
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Bob, my observation was that you are failing to address the issue on its merits. In fact, since there is NOT ONE paper in the entire vast library of Darwinian literature that experimentally substantiates the atheistic Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information/complexity, then the papers that ID has, papers experimentally confirming the impossibility of unguided processes to generate functional information/complexity, though they may be few in number, greatly exceed any experimental evidence Darwinism has on the subject. Thus, on relative merits, since you do not demand the same experimental standard for Darwinism as you do for ID on the primary question at the heart of the dispute between ID and Darwinism, you are guilty of hypocrisy in your judgment of the matter!bornagain77
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Bob, you modestly state,,, “I never said that my papers were tackling the evolution vs ID debate so your criticisms are totally moot” Then would that not render any of your criticisms on papers dealing directly with the issues between ID and Darwinism moot as well?
Errr, no. I don't think one has to have published academic work on this area to make a contribution. In my original reply I was simply pointing out the apparent dearth of published research by the Biologic Institute, and giving some sort of baseline to compare it to. If you want to argue that one can't contribute to the ID/evolution debate unless you've published an academic paper on it first, then go ahead and tell BarryA, News, kairosfocus, Mapou, Joe, etc etc that their arguments are moot and can be ignored then go ahead. I'll prepare the popcorn.Bob O'H
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
sparc you ask, "How do you measure the quality of research?" To me, 'good science', in fact the best science there is, is when physicists try their damndest to falsify an axiomatic claim of a given theory and it passes with flying colors. For instance, the 120 standard deviation verification of Leggett's inequality would qualify as par excellence science in my book: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett's inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf How many h-factors would you give that particular falsification of materialistic claims sparc? ========= “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003bornagain77
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Not to be less than impressed with all the h factor fanfare you are enamored with sparc (YAWN!), but can you cite the exact Darwinian paper that provides the exact experimental verification for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can create molecular machines? Or is that little detail a distant second to h-factors in your book? If so, your view of how science actually operates is severely distorted!
Maybe you should open your comments with "And now for something completely different", I was actually referring to your earlier comment in which you stated:
Excuse me Bob O’H, but you seem to be confusing quantity with quality.
How do you measure the quality of research? Let me guess: You just see it if something is good science.sparc
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
#23 bornagain77 Hey, bullying is not nice. :) Be polite to the poor interlocutors. Don't take advantage of their weak arguments. That's not fair. :)Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
I wonder if the false prophets of Baal also had high 'H-factors' sparc? :) Not to be less than impressed with all the h factor fanfare you are enamored with sparc (YAWN!), but can you cite the exact Darwinian paper that provides the exact experimental verification for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can create molecular machines? Or is that little detail a distant second to h-factors in your book? If so, your view of how science actually operates is severely distorted! The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY Bob, you modestly state,,, "I never said that my papers were tackling the evolution vs ID debate so your criticisms are totally moot" Then would that not render any of your criticisms on papers dealing directly with the issues between ID and Darwinism moot as well? at least I now know that if I ever want to discuss the issue of,,, 'Facial morphology predicts male fitness and rank but not survival in Second World War Finnish soldiers,,,' I know where to find it.,,, Something tells me that I will be waiting a long time to reference that paper of yours though! :) No matter how highly it is rated by h-factors! The paper is simply 'stamp collecting' as far as I'm concerned!.bornagain77
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
ba77 - I never said that my papers were tackling the evolution vs ID debate so your criticisms are totally moot.Bob O'H
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
BA77, you may want to click on "citation metrics" at Bob's Researcher ID page. You'll find his H-factor there which is indeed quite good when one take into accont that he is not working in one of the fields considerered hot by Nature or Science. Can you provide the H-factors of Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Nelson, Wells and the "biological" work of Bob Marks? If their records cannot be found at Researcher ID you my try Reuter's Web of Science or Scopus (Google Scholar is not really reliable in this respect). In addition, which are the most often cited ID papers and often have they actally cited without being refuted in the very same citing article? Just name them and I will find out how often they have been cited. If you cannot get the numbers just list the titles ans I'll check how often they have been cited.sparc
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply