Home » Intelligent Design » How to take down NDE

How to take down NDE

I recently came across a very interesting post at Watts Up With That? which provides an object lesson in how to demolish the claims of neo-Darwinian evolution.

According to the post:

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny….

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

“What’s the relevance of this to neo-Darwinian evolution?” I hear you ask. Simple. If NDE is to be considered an adequate theory, it has to have a model which can account for the kind of complexity we observe in living things today. It doesn’t. If you want a clearcut example, think of the Cambrian explosion. No-one has a quantitative scientific model of how that happened.

For years, though, NDE has been accepted by a large section of the public as established fact, simply because there is a vast amount of evidence for material continuity between all kinds of organisms (especially the underlying genetic similarities). That, coupled with the very strong evidence for a nested hierarchy linking organismic traits in different creatures, certainly points to common ancestry.

What neo-Darwinian evolution doesn’t do, however, is explain form – the emergence of new structures at all levels, from micro to macro. And a successful theory of life has to do just that. A competent expose by a lawyer with good cross-examining skills – like the one done on man-made global warming recently – could serve to discredit NDE in the public mind. It could also serve as the basis of a legal challenge to the way evolution is taught at schools – as an all-inclusive theory of biology, in the same way that atomic theory is of chemistry. If we can convince the public at large that there is a large slab of biology that NDE can’t explain, then we willhave knocked it off its perch as a Big Theory. It will no longer seem really important – at best, it will be just part of a much bigger picture.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

51 Responses to How to take down NDE

  1. NDE has one thing going for it- it makes for a great narrative.

    Sell the people the story and all its elegance and simplicity so that they don’t even question it.

    And when people do question it just repeat the narrative.

    IOW the narrative is the evidence!

  2. There are nearly 1,300,000 species of animal life on the planet. Pretend that there were 1,300,000 different automobile models produced (yes, this is almost as many as GM makes!). If one representative of each model was randomly distributed across the surface of the moon, and I were to go there and start cataloging, I would create a classification system. There would be compacts with 4 cylinder engines, SUVs with 6 cylinders, pick-up trucks with extended cabs, etc., etc., etc. With 1,300,000 models, you could devise a fairly deep system of classification, in fact. Now, if you had that many different models, there would be many commonalities and similarities in appearance and such. It would appear that the different groups had emerged from a single ancestral vehicle; however, we would all know that it would be an APPEARANCE of common ancestry, not the real explanation. I believe such an analogy works well for understanding the natural world. Darwinians like to talk about the appearance of design, but I believe the appearance of evolution is much stronger countercriticism.

  3. If NDE is to be considered an adequate theory, it has to have a model which can account for the kind of complexity we observe in living things today. It doesn’t. If you want a clearcut example, think of the Cambrian explosion. No-one has a quantitative scientific model of how that happened.

    Could you be exaggerating the importance of the Cambrian explosion?
    Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation

    Although high rates of evolution may have prevailed during the Cambrian radiation, they were not phenomenally high nor high enough to merit the formulation of new rules of evolution relating to the tempo of speciation.

  4. Quote “What neo-Darwinian evolution doesn’t do, however, is explain form – the emergence of new structures at all levels, from micro to macro. ”

    Be careful with how you throw those words around, “micro” and “macro”. Relating to evolution, either they are both proven and established with the certainty of the laws of physics, or they both don’t exist. Both conclusions usually come from the same evolutionist.

  5. camanintx:

    Actually, in evolutionary time terms, they were indeed “phenomenally high”.

    How fast does it have to get before you start feeling uncomfortable with NDE’s inane conjectures?

  6. Borne @ 3

    Actually, in evolutionary time terms, they were indeed “phenomenally high”.

    Water flows into an empty vessel much faster than into a full one, but that doesn’t mean new theories of fluid motion are needed to describe it.

    How fast does it have to get before you start feeling uncomfortable with NDE’s inane conjectures?

    Apparently much higher than they are.

  7. camanintx (#2):

    Thank you for your post. Just a couple of quick comments:

    (1) As I see it, the critical problem with the Cambrian expolsion is not the rate of morphological change, but the sudden appearance of dozens of new cell types. This was an evolutionary “quantum leap.” You might like to have a look at Dr. Stephen Meyer’s 2004 paper at http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 – especially the part on the Cambrian information explosion.

    (2) To measure rates of evolution back then, you need to know where Cambrian phyla came from in the first place. The alleged Precambrian ancestors of Cambrian phyla don’t appear very plausible, as the link at http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf shows.

  8. camanintx-

    “Water flows into an empty vessel much faster than into a full one, but that doesn’t mean new theories of fluid motion are needed to describe it.

    -How fast does it have to get before you start feeling uncomfortable with NDE’s inane conjectures?-

    Apparently much higher than they are.”

    Comparing evolution to water flowing into an empty vessel is a level of reductionism that is incomprehensibly absurd.

  9. A competent expose by a lawyer with good cross-examining skills – like the one done on man-made global warming recently – could serve to discredit NDE in the public mind. It could also serve as the basis of a legal challenge to the way evolution is taught at schools – as an all-inclusive theory of biology, in the same way that atomic theory is of chemistry. If we can convince the public at large that there is a large slab of biology that NDE can’t explain, then we willhave knocked it off its perch as a Big Theory. It will no longer seem really important – at best, it will be just part of a much bigger picture.

    Be careful what you wish for. It is not so long ago that William Dembski wrote, in anticipation of a forthcoming court case:

    Thus, in a crucial way, the Kansas hearings repeat the pattern set by the Scopes Trial, which hasbeen repeated many times since, namely, evolutionists escaped critical scrutiny by not having toundergo cross-examination. In this case, they accomplished the feat by boycotting the hearings. I therefore await the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views. There are ways for this to happen, and the wheels are in motion (e.g., Congressional hearings over the teaching of biology in federally funded high schools for military kids). For such hearings to have the desired effect, however, will require that evolutionists be asked the right questions. What I propose in this document (henceforth “The Vise Document”) is to lay out a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them.

    And we all know how well this strategy turned out for the movement at Dover.

  10. vjtorley; thanks for the link on the Darwin’s Dilemma: Here is a cool link, I found yesterday, related to Darwin’s Dilemma as well:

    Exotic Cambrian Animals and Plants – Animated videos
    http://www.lightproductionsvid.....imals.html

  11. Seversky, you seem to revel in the fact that evolutionists were able to hoodwink the public at Dover, yet you know far better than what was spoon fed to the public at Dover. (i.e. you personally know for a fact that Darwinism has no valid scientific support by your participation here on UD) Thus my question to you is this, Since you know the glaring deficiencies of neo-Darwinism, What is your excuse for following such a bankrupt theory?

  12. 12

    Seversky,

    And we all know how well this strategy turned out for the movement at Dover.

    Evolution wasn’t on trial like it was at Scopes, and Scopes lost at that trial, 66 years after Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was published. By the way, G. K. Chesterton debated Clarence Darrow after that trial, and defeated him quite handily.

  13. All the different eyes appeared during the Cambrian. I believe one of our more ardent ID skeptics pointed out that vision requires the coordinated cascade of 2000 separate proteins to happen. This ardent skeptic still had faith that random processes produced this incredibly coordinated sequence. Since that time, essentially no new vision systems have appeared. Curious phenomena since there has been more time since the Cambrian than time before it for multi-cellular processes to accumulate.

    I wonder how many of the irreducibly complex processes that we find in the world today, date back to the Cambrian? Is it possible to find points in time where some of these processes originated that is different?

  14. bornagain77 @ 11

    Seversky, you seem to revel in the fact that evolutionists were able to hoodwink the public at Dover, yet you know far better than what was spoon fed to the public at Dover.

    No, if I revel in anything it is that a hoodwinking of the public was prevented at Dover.

    Thus my question to you is this, Since you know the glaring deficiencies of neo-Darwinism, What is your excuse for following such a bankrupt theory?

    The theory of evolution has paid ample dividend on the time and effort that has been invested in it. When ID can makes successful predictions like that of Tiktaalik then it could be considered for discharge from its own intellectual bankruptcy.

  15. Clive Hayden @ 12

    Evolution wasn’t on trial like it was at Scopes, and Scopes lost at that trial, 66 years after Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was published.

    As I think we all know now, although it was promoted as a confrontation between religion and science, the trial at Dayton was technically about whether Scopes had broken the law by teaching the theory of evolution in contravention of Tenessee’s Butler Act. It was established that he had and so was found guilty but got off because of a procedural error in the sentencing.

    In reality, the trial was got up as a publicity stunt by businessmen and prominent citizens of Dayton in an attempt to revive to local economy.

    At Dover, the court found that the statement that was required to be read out before science classes was, in effect, an unconstitutional attempt to gain a foothold for a particular religious movement in the science curriculum. Those promoting it were not motivated by financial gain. It was clearly a stratagem to claim unearned scientific respectability, and hence political influence, for their personal religious beliefs.

    By the way, G. K. Chesterton debated Clarence Darrow after that trial, and defeated him quite handily.

    So I read, but all it proves is that, on that day, Chesterton had the better of the debate in the opinion of the majority of the audience. Like all such debates, it proves nothing about religion or science.

  16. Seversky, Methinks you are much to easily led astray by your imagination:

    Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints – January 2010
    Excerpt: The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....e_wat.html

    Tiktaalik- Out Of Order
    Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order.
    http://www.reasons.org/OutofOrder

    One would think the stunning lack of gradualism between any phyla in the fossil record, noted by leading paleontologists no less, would falsify the evolutionary hypothesis, yet evolution has steadfastly resisted falsification by this method. The following article clearly points out how evolutionists are able to avoid falsification by the crushing lack of evidence for gradualism between phyla found in the fossil record:

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....es_pa.html

    Partial List Of Fossil Groups – (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) – Timeline Illustration:
    http://www.earthhistory.org.uk.....groups.jpg

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    I suppose Seversky you are also much too forgiving of the ample supply of failed predictions for neo-Darwinism:

    Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

    Failed Predictions of Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_49-08_00

    Whereas the predictions of Intelligent Design are doing quite well (Thank You for asking Seversky):

    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) (D. Abel)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions that we can test:

    A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? – March 2010
    Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions:
    (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
    (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
    (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
    (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....rom_a.html

  17. Seversky you need to go to the bank and check your balance again, that is a minus sign, not a plus sign, before your assets, evolution is not paying you any dividends whatsoever, in fact it is sucking you completely dry of any credibility you ever had of intellectual solvency.

    Darwin’s Unpaid Debt – William Dembski – video
    http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29318002

  18. Seversky, here is the formal falsification of your philosophical basis. i.e. materialism:

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4744145

    Further Note:

    Materialism compared to Theism within the scientific method
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc....._5fwz42dg9

    But what should be of extremely more important concern to you Seversky, What are the eternal consequences for you being so stubbornly wrong about Theism?

    “What If” Nichole Nordeman
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUGQFH03apc

  19. 19

    bornagain,

    One would think the stunning lack of gradualism between any phyla in the fossil record, noted by leading paleontologists no less, would falsify the evolutionary hypothesis….

    You would certainly think so. Anymore, I am convinced it’s a “science” without any real falsification criteria. They assume it first, retrofit data to it, and have a ready-made just-so story as an explanation when it is inadequate.

  20. 20

    Seversky,

    Those promoting it were not motivated by financial gain. It was clearly a stratagem to claim unearned scientific respectability, and hence political influence, for their personal religious beliefs.

    You being an empiricist who believes the only real things that exist are physical objects, where is the physical evidence of such a claim about motivations? Did hidden motivations fall onto the floor from the pockets of ID folks at that trial? Do you still believe that reason, logic and mathematics do not exist because you cannot stub your toe against them? I don’t mean to change the subject, but you act as if things are “clear” as if ” objectively true” when you want them to be, such as motivations at Dover, but reject them when it comes to moral or mathematical motivations. Excuse me if I point out this contradiction. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You must say that it was not at all “clear” much less “true” given that motivations do not physically exist. I like the double standard that you impose to bolster your non-existent (because it is not in your front yard) philosophy.

  21. 21

    Seversky,

    So I read, but all it proves is that, on that day, Chesterton had the better of the debate in the opinion of the majority of the audience. Like all such debates, it proves nothing about religion or science.

    Don’t you try to do the same here almost every day? Prove something about science? And do you think that since the “audience” was who was convinced that Chesterton was right, couldn’t the same be said about one judge at Dover thinking that the ACLU was right? At least Chesterton convinced thousands of people, whereas the ACLU only convinced one. Now can you imagine, asking only one person in Chesterton’s audience who won?

  22. I was disappointed that the ruling was not appealed.

  23. bornagain77 @ 16

    Seversky, Methinks you are much to easily led astray by your imagination:

    Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints – January 2010

    [...]

    If you think that quoting the Discovery Institute or Reasons to Believe carries any evidential weight on questions of biology you are sorely mistaken and, in any event, none of the quoted articles undermines the fact and accuracy of the Tiktaalik prediction in the slightest.

    I suppose Seversky you are also much too forgiving of the ample supply of failed predictions for neo-Darwinism:

    Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter

    [...]

    Based on what I have read of his views here and on his website, Hunter, like Jonathan Wells, is a proponent of intelligent design for religious reasons. The only difference is that Wells, at least initially, was honest about his motives:

    “Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.” –Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. [3]

    For that reason, I would not accept the unsupported word of either of them on any question in science.

    Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions that we can test:

    A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? – March 2010

    The theory of evolution predicted the existence of transitional forms between fish and land-dwelling animals. There was a gap in the fossil record where the remains of such long-extinct creatures should have been. The researchers had a good idea of what sort of creature they were looking for and when it should have existed. Geology led them to areas where rocks of the right age had been laid down. They went to one such area and found what they had predicted should be there. It was a stunning achievement.

    Intelligent Design did not, and most likely could not have, made such a prediction. It has not and does not yet make any such specific predictions.

  24. Clive Hayden @ 20

    You being an empiricist who believes the only real things that exist are physical objects, where is the physical evidence of such a claim about motivations? Did hidden motivations fall onto the floor from the pockets of ID folks at that trial?

    Do you really want me to quote the evidence of the religious motives of those behind the statement that emerged under cross-examination at Dover? Have you forgotten that, in at least one case, a witness came perilously close to perjuring himself by denying those motives under oath?

    Do you still believe that reason, logic and mathematics do not exist because you cannot stub your toe against them?

    I do not deny that reason, logic and mathematics exist. What I deny is that they have any existence outside human consciousness. They exist in our minds as ‘tools’ that we use to describe, model and explain what exists in the world beyond each of us. In visual terms, a rough analogy would be to the CGI software that adds imagery to movies that was not in the original scene as recorded by the cameras.

  25. Clive Hayden @ 21

    Don’t you try to do the same here almost every day? Prove something about science? And do you think that since the “audience” was who was convinced that Chesterton was right, couldn’t the same be said about one judge at Dover thinking that the ACLU was right?

    There are crucial differences between a public debate and a public trial.

    From the reports of the debate that have survived from the time it appears that Chesterton was the brighter, sharper and more entertaining of the two.

    But suppose he had been pinned down on a witness-stand for hours on end, his views subjected to a merciless, forensic dissection by a lawyer skilled in cross-examination and where his wit and charm would have been of limited value, how impressive would he have appeared then?

  26. Well Ok Seversky your wisdom is sorely needed here,,, Can you please help me sort through these predictions one by one:

    1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. – Big Bang points to a creation event. -

    2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation – Time was created in the Big Bang. -

    3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) – Space was created in the Big Bang. -

    4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space – Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

    5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9)-

    6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind – Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. -

    7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe – Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. -

    8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. -

    9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -

    10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -

    11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth -

    12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. -

    13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. -

    14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. -

    Now seversky these are foundational predictions of scientific discoveries for reality that materialism completely missed. Do you really believe that you can just deny this has any relevance to the validity of your theory and not look completely adrift of logic in doing so???

    You know Seversky you scoffed at Hunter, Luskin, Wells, etc.. all for believing in God. Well guess what seversky, I know for a fact that Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth is indeed very real and that you will one day give account of your life on this earth to Him, as we all will! Myself, even though I am not that smart in a lot of things, at least I find it wise within myself to humble myself before God Almighty as unfortunately you seem to fail to find wise within yourself:

    Brooks & Dunn – Believe
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5z-jjWyAJQ

  27. I Saw God Today – George Strait
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q06AvQF5NOw

  28. vjtorley @ 7

    As I see it, the critical problem with the Cambrian expolsion is not the rate of morphological change, but the sudden appearance of dozens of new cell types. This was an evolutionary “quantum leap.” You might like to have a look at Dr. Stephen Meyer’s 2004 paper at http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 – especially the part on the Cambrian information explosion.

    You might like to check out “Morphological Complexity Increase in Metazoans” Paleontology 20(1994):2:131-142. They have a chart which shows the number of cell types for various classes of animals vs. the time in which that group appears in the fossil record. The authors then constructed a computer model with 2000 beings in which each generation of the model the beings could go up or down in the number of cell types. This was done by pure chance. The only limit was that they couldn’t have negative cell types. over a number of generations, the maximum number of cell types increased. When the shape of the curve is compared with the shape of the observed increase in the fossil record the randomly produced model matches the shape of the increase in the number of cell types over time. Thus, random creation of novel cellular types is consistent with what we see in the fossil record.

  29. Camanintx-

    Are you really that naive to think that computer simulations reflect reality?

  30. bornagain77 @ 26

    Well Ok Seversky your wisdom is sorely needed here,,, Can you please help me sort through these predictions one by one:

    Well, okay, but just this once, mind.

    Now we should start by reminding ourselves that “materialism” is a metaphysical position rather than a scientific theory so it doesn’t really make any specific predictions. There are plenty of theories based on the materialist assumption that do, however.

    1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe.

    No, in recent cosmology there were two contending theories, steady state and the Big Bang. Accumulated evidence decided the issue in favor of the latter.

    Theism asserts a created Universe but the existence of an eternal deity does not predict it. There is no reason why there could not an eternal Universe like an eternal God.

    2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation – Time was created in the Big Bang. -

    No, steady state theory in cosmology assumed an eternal Universe. The Big Bang theory, also materialistic, holds that time and space were created at the same point, when everything went “Bang!”

    As far as theism is concerned, see my previous comment.

    3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) – Space was created in the Big Bang. -

    Since time and space are treated a single entity, see my previous comment.

    4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space – Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

    In physics, atomic theory initially held that matter was composed of tiny, discrete, indivisible particles. Particle physics found particles within particles and quantum theory found that the particles could be either particles or waves depending on how you observed but are probably neither.

    Your toe still hurts if you stub it on a rock, though.

    Theism says nothing about the structure of matter one way or the other. It certainly didn’t tell us to expect wave/particle duality or quantum indeterminacy. It was materialistic physics alone that took us there.

    5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9)-

    In classical physics, time was assumed to pass at a constant rate. Relativity theory, also materialistic, postulated flexitime and observations have born that out.

    What have Psalms

    90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

    or 2 Timothy

    1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

    got to do with that?

    6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind – Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. -

    With no evidence for an Intelligent Creator there is no reason to think there is a purpose for it all. The rest is just APT – Adamsian Puddle Theory.

    7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe – Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. -

    Evidence from physics and biology suggests that if life can occur here, especially under extreme conditions, then there is no reason to assume it could not happen elsewhere. At present we don’t know if there is extraterrestrial life but that could change in the not-too-distant future.

    8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. -

    In genetics, “junk” DNA was simply a handy label for DNA sequences that had no observable function. Some of it, like the gene for vitamin C, may have had a function once and lost it, some of it may have never had a function. A lot of it still has no known function. As for the future, who knows? Some of it may become part of a sequence that does have a function.

    As for theism, there are, as you know, theistic evolutionists who hold that there is no reason why a God could not have used evolution as part of creation.

    9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -

    Evolutionary theory predicts that most mutations will be neutral in effect, a lot will be detrimental and a few will be beneficial. It’s not as black-and-white as that, though. The failure of the gene for vitamin C is detrimental but we can compensate for it quite easily just by eating the right foods. Sickle cell disease is generally detrimental except where malaria is endemic, then it becomes beneficial enough to keep around.

    10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -

    The theory of evolution and origins of life research hypothesize that the earliest life form was most probably far simpler than the earliest form for which we have evidence. We may never know, though, since it is highly unlikely that anything like that would have fossilized or otherwise been preserved until today.

    According to the Bible, though, God started with plants and seeds which are a already a lot more complex than the earliest life forms for which we have evidence.

    11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth -

    The theory requires geological timescales to allow for life to evolve in the way it has. Physics and geology have provided evidence for a 4.55 bn year old Earth which is more than enough.

    The Bible says it took six days. It’s a nice story.

    12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. -

    The theory of evolution predicts gradual change but not necessarily at a constant rate. It allows for periods of relatively rapid change interspersed with long periods of little or no change. Given the low resolution and fragmentary nature of the fossil record that could make it look as if some forms appeared suddenly. It even allows for “explosions” that last for tens of millions of years.

    13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record

    There are transitional fossils – the aforementioned Tiktaalik is one of them – just as there should be.

    14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. -

    So biology and theism agree that human beings are the most recent species/creation. That’s nice.

    Now seversky these are foundational predictions of scientific discoveries for reality that materialism completely missed. Do you really believe that you can just deny this has any relevance to the validity of your theory and not look completely adrift of logic in doing so???

    As I hope you noticed, all our major scientific theories and the evidence on which they are based are the product of materialistic science. There are still a lot of very deep and very difficult questions to answer and there is no guarantee that we will survive long enough to find them but materialistic/naturalistic science has served us well so far and there is no good reason to stop using it so we might as well carry on. Any one who has any better ideas is welcome to try them.

    You know Seversky you scoffed at Hunter, Luskin, Wells, etc.. all for believing in God. Well guess what seversky, I know for a fact that Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth is indeed very real and that you will one day give account of your life on this earth to Him, as we all will! Myself, even though I am not that smart in a lot of things, at least I find it wise within myself to humble myself before God Almighty as unfortunately you seem to fail to find wise within yourself:

    I did not scoff at Hunter, Luskin or Wells for their beliefs – any more than I scoff at yours. They are fully entitled to believe whatever they choose. What I object to is when they break their own Ninth Commandment and lie about science in the service of those beliefs.

  31. Phaedros,

    Are you really that naive to think that computer simulations reflect reality?

    The mind boggles at the billions down the drain for computerized weather forecasting.

    Bjerknes must be rotating in his grave.

  32. Seversky first you state the truth that materialism is a metaphysical position. (A position that has clearly been falsified by the modern science seversky) but then at the end of your very superficial rationalizations as to why materialism has utterly failed in its predictive power for how we should find reality you state:

    “As I hope you noticed, all our major scientific theories and the evidence on which they are based are the product of materialistic science.”

    No Seversky modern science is built on the backs of the Christian Theists who founded every major branch of modern science. Materialism, which even you admit is a metaphysical position in the first place, had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of science, nor has materialism done anything in the pursuit of modern discoveries about the nature of how reality actually is, and was, constructed, except to send men down blind alleys and dead ends that has cost us many years of futile effort and wasted dollars. The cost in human lives and the untold misery visited on man by political systems based upon materialistic beliefs staggers the imagination. For you to try to sully the good word “science”, which is actually the relentless pursuit of truth, with the adjective of “materialism” should rightly sicken any man who is concerned with finding out the pure truth about reality.
    Frankly I find your claim of being “scientific” in these matters to be far less than sincere in its intent. It is clear to me that you are not interested in finding the truth at all but are only interested in preserving your atheism no matter what lie you have to tell yourself or rationalization you have to believe in. And all for what seversky? Of what possible benefit is it for you to deny the reality of God? Do you think that you shall be able to hide in your myriad of lies when you die? And why in the world do you want to hide from God in the first place? Don’t you know that His good and perfect will for your life is far better than what your own personal will for your life is? Don’t you know that being in the presence of Almighty God is the most desirable thing that a man could wish for?

    In The Presence Of Almighty God – The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

    Near Death Experiences – Scientific Evidence – Dr Jeff Long M.D.
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627

    Don’t you know that to be eternally separated from God is a horror that can’t even be fathomed by the mind of man?

    Hell – A Warning! – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476

    And all for what seversky? Is it because of your pride? Why in blue blazes are you not at least semi-reasonable with the mountain of evidence presented to you? Especially when the consequences are “potentially” so devastating for you?

    Celtic Woman – Amazing Grace
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCp5LG_zNE

  33. Cabal, and just how long are computer weather forecasts accurate to without reference to the “real” world? One week? One Month? One Year” And yet you have a computer simulation running for millions of years without any reference to the real world whatsoever. To top that off the simulations programmers readily admit jerry rigging the initial parameters. I suppose a more biased “proof” for evolution could not be found even in the infamous cartoon drawings on man “evolving” from ape.

    The Ape To Man Drawings – Another Blatant Deception of Evolution – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4236845

    Human Evolution? – The Compelling Genetic, Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve – Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

    Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
    Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

  34. Phaedros @ 29

    Are you really that naive to think that computer simulations reflect reality?

    Apparently you haven’t read the paper. The computer model wasn’t intended to reflect reality but to generate a random distribution of cell types with which reality could be compared.

  35. The problem is that not new cell types can potentially come into existence, they are starting to get a handle on what produces a new cell type. The problem is that these different cell types would assemble in a complex coordinated fashion with the other systems in the organism and be selected for. The process of cell differentiation is itself a very complex process whereby certain proteins are expressed and others are not and on top of that there is the coordination problem.

    The whole fossil sequence is easily explained by a systematic experimentation or engineering of parts so that they can arise from one common origin, namely a single cell formed at conception. And then form an extremely complex highly coordinated organism. The rationale for these steps is something that can be studied and one such scenario could be that it was necessary for the ecology and solar system to evolve to enable the viability of highly complex organisms. This cell has within it the possibilities of numerous cell types but only because of elaborate control mechanisms are built in. Fantastic design and engineering. But a product of happenstance, not very likely. Remember multi cell organisms appear late in life’s history and all this complicated machinery would have to arisen after the first multi-cellular organisms first appeared. The obvious intractable example is the eye, to arise in such a short time and require a couple thousand different proteins to act in concert in a an extremely efficient sequence.

    Science is irrelevant in this discussion. This battle is fought over ideology not common sense and facts. A true discussion would acknowledge the reasonableness of both sides of an argument and then would move on to support or falsify each position. But because one side is wedded to an inflexible ideology, they have no choice but to postulate miraculous extremely low probabilities to justify their position. Not an honest one amongst them. The ID side always acknowledges the possibilities of natural processes producing everything. The anti ID side has no such flexibility and is knee jerk in all its responses.

    What amazes me is that they adhere to such a position. I am sure there is doubt in their heads but they cannot budge an inch. Interesting phenomena. They are so scared that they dare not give on anything. Their main endeavor here is to find some little fault with the ID position not to defend their own.

  36. camanintx-

    That paper is a joke. It modeled the probabilities of cell types increasing, staying the same, or decreasing over time. Obviously there is a lot more going on in the increased complexity of organisms, new cell types, and new morphologies. Not least of these problems is the creation of new information.

  37. camanintx-

    That paper is a joke. It modeled the probabilities of cell types increasing, staying the same, or decreasing over time. Obviously there is a lot more going on in the increased complexity of organisms, new cell types, and new morphologies. Not least of these problems is the creation of new information.

  38. camanintx:

    The paper you quote from is dated 1994. Just to nroaden the discussion, I offer here a quote from a more recent paper: “New Perspectives on the Origin of Metazoan Complexity: An Introduction to the Symposium”, by RUTH ANN DEWEL, INTEGR. COMP. BIOL., 43:1–2 (2003):

    The theory that early metazoans were simple and that complexity has been assembled incrementally is flawed for other reasons. Such a trajectory is not required by logic, because the first metazoans could have been complex, with complexity decreasing in some or most clades. In addition, a ‘‘complexity late’’ scenario provides no clues about the structure of the intermediate forms connecting the simple common ancestor with later more complex forms; indeed, little work of even a speculative nature has been done to address this issue (Conway Morris, 2000). The assumption is also challenged by the discovery that protostomes and deuterostomes share complex developmental programs, such as the Hox cluster regulating spatial patterning (Balavoine and Adoutte, 1998; de Rosa et al., 1999; Holland, 1998), and that even cnidarians possess a complex set of Hox genes (Finnerty and Martindale, 1999; Gauchat et al., 2000; Kourakis and Martindale, 2000). Although genetic complexity usually is thought to have preceded increases in body plan complexity, the possibility that morphological complexity grew concomitantly with or even before (Budd, 1999) diversification of the genome cannot be dismissed. The Cambrian fossil record suggests that many metazoans were macroscopic and adapted for life in the macrobenthos (Gehling, 1991; Dzik, 1993; Fedonkin and Waggoner, 1997; Valentine et al., 1999; Martin et al., 2000). Metazoan characters are more typical of large organisms, and large organisms are likely to be more complex (Bonner, 1988), and the functions, at least of bilaterian characters, indicate that they arose in large organisms (Budd and Jensen, 2000; Dewel, 2000).

    This is just to show that Ediacara and Cambrian explosions, and the emergence of metazoa and body plans, do remain a very big issue, unlikely to be solved by an old computer simulation.

  39. Thanks gpuccio :)

  40. It seems to me that evolutionists run into the same insurmountable problem at the macroscopic level for metazoans as they do the microscopic level with single cells: Namely,,, Irreducible Complexity

    Design principles in a gastropod mollusc
    Excerpt: “Design, inspired by nature, of engineering materials with robust and multifunctional mechanical properties [i.e., those which sustain a variety of loading conditions] is a topic of major technological interest in a variety of civilian and defense applications. Here, we identify the design principles of the shell of a gastropod mollusc from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent [order Neomphalina, family Peltospiridae, species Crysomallon squamiferum]. This system has a trilayered structure unlike any other known mollusc or any other known natural armor, with a relatively thick compliant organic layer embedded between two stiffer mineralized layers, an outer iron sulfide-based layer and an inner calcified shell.”
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....od_mollusc

    Amazing Animals & Biomimicry: Design vs. Darwinism – Chris Ashcraft – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVTAhtVt0dk

    Biomimicry – Design Found In Life
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....#038;hl=en

  41. 41

    Seversky,

    But suppose he had been pinned down on a witness-stand for hours on end, his views subjected to a merciless, forensic dissection by a lawyer skilled in cross-examination and where his wit and charm would have been of limited value, how impressive would he have appeared then?

    Very, just as he did in the debate against a lawyer who was cross examining him and his beliefs.

  42. 42

    Seversky,

    Do you really want me to quote the evidence of the religious motives of those behind the statement that emerged under cross-examination at Dover? Have you forgotten that, in at least one case, a witness came perilously close to perjuring himself by denying those motives under oath?

    Yes I would love you to, and just use empirical data, all else is just subjective and not really truth, right? It’s CGI compared to “reality”.

  43. This crap about “religious motives” are just that, crap. Everyone has a religion whether they realize it or not. Everyone is trying to support their worldview. Attempting to stigmatize someone for their “religious” motives is discrimination and anti-American, or at least anti- what America used to be.

  44. Phaedros (43),

    “Everyone is trying to support their worldview.”

    No they aren’t. There are plenty of people who are prepared to change their “worldview” as the evidence demands. A wise person once said “if the facts change my opinion changes”.

    Most of the problems in the world today are caused by people who try to fit the facts to their worldview.

  45. Yes I would love you to, and just use empirical data, all else is just subjective and not really truth, right? It’s CGI compared to “reality”.

    Since the thread is about legal challenges, it is necessary to use definitions relevant to legal challenges. In the absence of an appeal, the findings of fact in the Dover case will stand, at least in the jurisdiction of that court.

    Of course there could also be new actions initiated elsewhere, but all the testimony from the Dover case would be entered as evidence in the new case.

  46. Seversky

    Sorry for not responding sooner, but I’ve been rather busy. I’d like to go back to my original comment:

    What neo-Darwinian evolution doesn’t do, however, is explain form – the emergence of new structures at all levels, from micro to macro. And a successful theory of life has to do just that. A competent expose by a lawyer with good cross-examining skills – like the one done on man-made global warming recently – could serve to discredit NDE in the public mind. It could also serve as the basis of a legal challenge to the way evolution is taught at schools – as an all-inclusive theory of biology, in the same way that atomic theory is of chemistry.

    You commented: “Be careful what you wish for.”

    I’d like to be quite clear about what I’m suggesting here. This is not about whether ID should be taught in high-school classrooms. Nor is it about whether high school students should be presented with the evidence for common descent. Of course they should. What I’m advocating is that students be informed, honestly, that at the present time, there is no adequate scientific theory of how the 30+ different kinds of animal body plans arose; nor is there a general theory of how the complex various biochemical systems inside the cell arose; nor is there a general theory of how complex body organs arose.

    The fact that some hypotheses have been proposed in the scientific literature for the origin of this or that biochemical system or body organ, or for the origin of a particular phylum of animals, is completely beside the point. Neo-Darwinian evolution is supposed to be a general theory of biology, in the same way that the atomic theory is a general theory of chemistry. At the present time, NDE lacks a grand over-arching narrative for the origin of not only the cell, but also the complex biochemical systems inside it, as well as the origin of body organs and also animal body plans. In that case, it cannot qualify as a general theory of biology.

    After all, we are not talking about peripheral phenomena here, but about defining features of living things, especially of eukaryotes, and of animals in particular. There are millions of species of animals living on our planet. Any theory that cannot account for their origin, as well as the origin of their body organs and biochemical systems, does not deserve to be called a general theory of biology.

    Right now, we simply don’t have such a theory. High-school students have a right to know that.

  47. Two documents that are well worth reading, and that may be of interest to some:

    (1) Casey Luskin’s new list of 40 (yes, 40) irreducibly complex molecular machines in the cell, at http://www.discovery.org/a/14791 ;

    and

    (2) A proposal for State Legislatures to Pursue Impartial Audits of the Scientific Basis for Evolution as the State Teaches it in its High Schools, Colleges, and Universities, by Edward Sisson at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa.....id=1357100 .

  48. vjtorley, thanks for the link to molecular machines, but something tells me that list will get larger:

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought
    Excerpt: The smallest, simplest cells are prokaryotes.,,,One of the papers in Science to which PhysOrg referred said that some 200 molecular machines are found in this little microbe.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20091229a

  49. Gaz-

    “No they aren’t. There are plenty of people who are prepared to change their “worldview” as the evidence demands. A wise person once said “if the facts change my opinion changes”.

    Most of the problems in the world today are caused by people who try to fit the facts to their worldview.”

    This is a small minority of people that will go with the evidence. However, even just evidence needs an interpretation.

  50. vjtorley; This is interesting from Luskin’s list:

    The Closest Look Ever At The Cell’s Machines – 2006
    Excerpt: The study combined a method of extracting complete protein complexes from cells (tandem affinity purification, developed in 2001 by Bertrand Séraphin at EMBL), mass spectrometry and bioinformatics to investigate the entire protein household of yeast, turning up 257 machines that had never been observed. It also revealed new components of nearly every complex already known.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....121832.htm

  51. @Phaedros

    -”Everyone has a religion whether they realize it or not. Everyone is trying to support their worldview.”

    The problem is, the atheist does not have the intellectual courage to admit that to himself. And so the voluntary delusions commence.

Leave a Reply