View Full Version : Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win (whether you like it or not)
This piece deals mostly just with social factors that ID has on its side, but I'm convinced that in a fair fight (where evos can't rely on the support of mass media or their establishment bully-pulpit), the hypothesis of spontaneous evolution of all life can be gutted easily on purely scientific arguments.
Darwinism is going to lose because it is not fit for survival!
http://www.techcentralstation.com/100705C.html
Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win
By Douglas Kern
Published 10/07/2005
It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life. ID will be taught in public schools as a matter of course. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening right now, actually.
Here's why:
1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: families that reproduce people tend to reproduce ideas, as well. The most vocal non-scientist proponents of ID are those delightfully fertile Catholics, Evangelicals, and similarly right-leaning middle-class college-educated folk -- the kind whose children will inherit the country. Eventually, the social right will have the sheer manpower to teach ID wherever they please.
Despite what angry ID opponents may tell you, the advent of ID won't hurt American productivity a bit. Belief in ID does nothing to make believers less capable in science or engineering. No geek in the world will find his computer mojo diminished because of his opinions on irreducible complexity. To the contrary: ID might make biology and the natural sciences more appealing to believers who might otherwise find science to be too far removed from God's presence. As ID appeals to the conservative mindset without hurting anyone's skills, why wouldn't the social right embrace it?
To be sure, believers don't need ID to accept modern science. The Catholic Church, for example, made peace with traditional Darwinist theory long ago. Many scientists see no contradiction between Darwinism and their own religious beliefs. Rightly understood, Darwinist theory doesn't diminish God's glory any more than any other set of rules governing the world. An omnipotent God can act through scientific media as well as miraculous interventions.
But if ID is correct, then the intelligent designer of life must have lavished astonishing care and attention upon the human race to give it unique dignity and value -- as well as handicaps and temptations that only virtue can overcome. The God of Moses and Jesus didn't leave fingerprints at this scene, but it's His MO all the way. And as believers are detectives of the Almighty's presence, they're naturally more inclined to follow the clues revealing that familiar pattern.
2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.
"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads."
There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position. Vitriol, condescension, and endless accusations of bad faith all characterize far too much of the standard pro-Darwinian response to criticism. A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening. And yet, even in the face of a sober, thoughtful ID position, the pro-Darwin crowd insists on the same phooey-to-the-boobgeois shtick that was tiresome in Mencken's day. This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults. Pride goeth before a fall.
3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings -- even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing. Can science really plug a finger into every hole in the Darwinian dyke for the next fifty years?
4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.
ID is a proposition about information. It contends that the processes of life are so specific and carefully ordered that they must reflect deliberate action. Put simply: a complex message implies an even more complex sender. Separating ordered but random data from relevant, purposeful data -- that is, separating noise from messages -- is one of the key undertakings of the 21st century. In nearly every field, from statistics to quantum physics to cryptology to computer science, the smartest people on the planet are struggling to understand and apply the unfathomable power of information that modern technology has bequeathed to them. We have only scratched the surface of the problem-solving power that the Internet and cheap computing power open to us. As superior intellects strive to understand the metaphysics of information, they will find the information-oriented arguments of ID increasingly sensible and appealing. ID will fit nicely into the emerging worldview of tomorrow's intellectual elite.
This emerging worldview will take a more expansive view of science than does the current elite. Consider the "meme" meme. We all know what a meme is: a thought pattern that spreads from person to person and group to group like a viral infection spreading through a population. Yet memes cannot be bisected, or examined under a microscope, or "falsified" via the scientific method. Even so, we can make statements about memes with varying degrees of objective truthfulness. Is it possible to speak of a "science" of concepts? Right now, the scientific establishment says no. This unhelpful understanding of science will soon be discarded in favor of something more useful in the information age.
5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.
The human mind seeks order in everything. The entire body of knowledge available to mankind reflects our incorrigible desire to analyze, systemize, hypothesize, and theorize. It may well be that our brains are physically configured in such a way that we can't help but find order and design in the world. Don't look so surprised, evolutionists -- a brain attuned to order and design is a brain more likely to survive. The ability to detect design is essentially the ability to detect patterns, and the ability to detect patterns is the key to most applications of human intelligence. Hammers tend to find nails, screwdrivers tend to find screws, and the human mind tends to find design. Of course, the propensity to see designs doesn't mean that the designs aren't actually there. But the quintessential human perception is one of design -- and, to the extent that perceptions define reality, a theory built on the perception of design has a huge advantage over its competitors.
The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.
Douglas Kern is a lawyer and TCS contributor. To see another view of the debate over ID, read "Descent of Man in Dover" by Sallie Baliunas on TCS today.
Why Intelligent Design has already lost:
It disregards scientific scrutiny. Here's the logic:
P1: The universe is complex.
P2: Only intelligent beings can make complex things.
.: Some intelligent being made the universe.
Problems:
-Complexity is relative and a non-absolute, consequently non-universal, value-judgement. The idea of 'complexity' is a thought-construct. To a small child, simple algebra is tremendously complex. To a non-reasoning being, the universe is not complex at all...
-The pattern of leaves in my back yard, scattered by the wind, is so complex, due to quanta of leaves and semi-random nature of the scattering (though there are patterns, of course), that neither myself nor a high-end computer could handle the complexity properly. That's a complex thing, from this vantage point at least, and it was not willed by anything. Now, one might object, God wills all!, but this denies causality, and is furthermore idiotically teleological (an effect follows from a cause; a cause does not happen because of its future effect). So if one says, God wills all!, one either reduces God to a simple causal mechanism or denies causality altogether.
-The conclusion is thus invalid. Plus, the disregard for scientific rigor is hilarious. "The universe is complex, therefore God made it!" Complexity could arise from a number of things, and the explainations, if we want to allow really silly explainations, are endless. "Pink unicorns made the universe!" "Quanglandocla shoballa breathed in orange and went through photosynthesis, thus the universe came into being!"
Why Intelligent Design has already lost: It disregards scientific scrutiny.
Did you not notice the heading of this article:
"It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life."
We have genuine will to power, or to God-given dominion as the Bible puts it, and you don't, in spite of all your pseudo-profound blather.
You Nietzscheans have so very much exaggerated ideas on the weight of your personal notions.
Learn it, accept it: your opinion does not matter.
:)
Petr
We have genuine will to power, or to God-given dominion as the Bible puts it, and you don't, in spite of all your pseudo-profound blather.
You Nietzscheans have so very much exaggerated ideas on the weight of your personal notions.
Learn it, accept it: your opinion does not matter.
Which is your opinion, and it therefore doesn't really matter in the face of anything approaching something truthful. You pseudo-Christians, you Christ-lings (because I have come to the conclusion that you know nothing about real Christianity and are, like the herd that has wandered throughout the world for the past 2000 years, a pretender who knows nothing about affairs of the spirit), approach the science vs. God debate all wrong.
How could the Catholic Church possibly admit evolution to be correct? We all agree that the Church has degenerated, but one need only look at legitimate Christianity and understand that science is entirely reconcilable with faith.
Go read Eckhart's 'Commentary on Genesis.' Maybe you'll understand that Genesis has nothing to do with the origin of the material world, but is esoteric in meaning.
You pseudo-Christians, you Christ-lings (because I have come to the conclusion that you know nothing about real Christianity and are, like the herd that has wandered throughout the world for the past 2000 years, a pretender who knows nothing about affairs of the spirit), approach the science vs. God debate all wrong.
Then tell us about true Christianity and spirituality, o deep one. :p
Petr
Oh, look at this one! 'e's a beaut! Now, we need to be careful: when we hurt the Christ-ling by showing that he knows nothing, he responds with sarcasm (how passive-aggressive!) while failing to address his own ignorance.
Then tell us about true Christianity and spirituality, o deep one.
Crickey! Did you see 'im lash out at me?
Oh, look at this one! 'e's a beaut! Now, we need to be careful: when we hurt the Christ-ling by showing that he knows nothing, he responds with sarcasm (how passive-aggressive!) while failing to address his own ignorance.
Crickey! Did you see 'im lash out at me?
Poor baby, do you really think it is unbecoming for a Christian to lash back at the enemies of Faith? Check out Matthew 23, and also this essay:
"Offensisensitivity - Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? "
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html
Petr
May I also invite you to visit this anti-mystic OD thread of mine:
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18146&page=2&highlight=muenzer
9. IT PRETENDS THAT IT IS SELFLESS BUT IT IS IN FACT AN EXAMPLE OF THE ULTIMATE SELF-CENTEREDNESS
Mysticism inevitably leads to a lifetime of navel-gazing and introspection. It is a 'me' religion. Even the Roman Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton has enough insight to say:
'If I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth... Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light.
Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; anyone who knows anyone from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones... Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain.
The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognised an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners'.
What more needs to be said?
Petr
Poor baby
Did I cry?
do you really think it is unbecoming for a Christian to lash back at the enemies of Faith?
That is probably the most Christian thing one can do...
Check out Matthew 23
See Nietzsche's insights into the psychology of 'ressentiment'.
Regarding mysticism as self-worship, you seem to misunderstand the idea entirely. I don't doubt that a pseudo-Christian such as yourself would turn to self-worship upon becoming a mystic, however.
Excorcism
11-15-2005, 04:56 PM
Did you not notice the heading of this article:
"It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life."
We have genuine will to power, or to God-given dominion as the Bible puts it, and you don't, in spite of all your pseudo-profound blather.
You Nietzscheans have so very much exaggerated ideas on the weight of your personal notions.
Learn it, accept it: your opinion does not matter.
:)
umm...go to a college. I don't mean community college either, I mean colleges with renouned biology programs. Then ask the professors and doctors there, who know far more than this quack who wrote the article, and ask him/her about Intelligent Design with its faulty logic and no scientific support.
Petr[/QUOTE]
Helios Panoptes
11-15-2005, 04:56 PM
3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
Correct because it is non-falsifiable and is not science. Any scientifiic discovery one can imagine could happen tomorrow and it would have no bearing upon intelligent design. There is no way at all to empirically test it. If it is false, there is no way to verify this. If it is true, there is no way to verify this aside from God's intervention. You can post 50 more of these topics, as I'm sure you will, but ID will remain useless.
Excorcism
11-15-2005, 04:57 PM
Oh, look at this one! 'e's a beaut! Now, we need to be careful: when we hurt the Christ-ling by showing that he knows nothing, he responds with sarcasm (how passive-aggressive!) while failing to address his own ignorance.
Crickey! Did you see 'im lash out at me?
Watch out boys 'n girls, Danga! Danga! Danga! O'Crickey!
Any scientifiic discovery one can imagine could happen tomorrow and it would have no bearing upon intelligent design. There is no way at all to empirically test it.
It's exactly the same with evolution, which cannot be verified with experiments. The dogma of spontaneous evolution could be cut off right now, and the real science would suffer no harm. Actually it would benefit greatly as childish and exorbitantly expensive Darwinist programs like searching life from space (SETI) would be canceled.
Petr
umm...go to a college. I don't mean community college either, I mean colleges with renouned biology programs. Then ask the professors and doctors there, who know far more than this quack who wrote the article, and ask him/her about Intelligent Design with its faulty logic and no scientific support.[/QUOTE]
Meaningless ad hominem. Furthermore, I would claim that ID is a growing underground movement within the academia which is mostly afraid to "come out of the closet" because of fear of losing funding and even sacking. Just the same as with other un-PC subjects. Besides, scientists are capable of being herd-souls as anyone else.
We will overcome.
Petr
It's exactly the same with evolution, which cannot be verified with experiments.
Take some bacteria. Add something anti-bacterial. Wait. Remove the anti-bacterial substance and let those more-resistant bacteria breed. Repeat.
Behold! Intra-species evolution (eugenics, more accurately, but it's basically the same thing).
Now, the evolution of one species into another--that would be an interesting experiment.
We will overcome.
A great Jewish delusion, borrowed by those Europeans who, in their poor approach to Christianity, became Jews...
Take some bacteria. Add something anti-bacterial. Wait. Remove the anti-bacterial substance and let those more-resistant bacteria breed. Repeat.
Behold! Intra-species evolution (eugenics, more accurately, but it's basically the same thing).
Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?
"These principles should be enough to demonstrate that these latest claims about bacteria ‘evolving’ resistance are not a threat to Biblical creation. Despite all this, many evolutionist crow about antibiotic resistance as an amazing ‘prediction’ of evolution. Even aside from the above points, this is revisionist history. Historically, antibiotic resistance first took the medical profession by surprise—even as late as 1969, experts stated that ‘infectious diseases were a thing of the past’. I.e. antibiotic resistance was hardly a ‘prediction’ of evolution, but is really a phenomenon explained ‘after the fact’ by evolutionary language. "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp
Petr
Every hypothesis finds its validation 'after the fact' in the experiment itself. That bullshit doesn't do away with anything. You're just living in a fantasy land in which you ignore those ideas you dislike, and prove these ideas false with delusions. But we all do this--your problem is that you are in denial of your denial!
You are just a blathering mystic. I'm tired of listening to you, since you have nothing concrete to say, just like it is with all "negative theologians".
Petr
You are just a blathering mystic. I'm tired of listening to you.
I get tired of such arguing, too, but one must wonder: is your turning-away from this debate, this turning-away from my posts, also a turning-away from uncomfortable ideas? You have blatantly demonstrated your denial.
since you have nothing concrete to say, just like it is with all "negative theologians".
There is a reason for that. We think in words, do we not? And this thought brings about a fractured perception of the world. It would, too, bring about a fractured perception of God. We'd call him 'good,' as if he were not also evil. We'd call him a great 'humanist,' as if he were not also inhumane. We'd call him 'meek,' as if he were not strong.
I get tired of such arguing, too, but one must wonder: is your turning-away from this debate, this turning-away from my posts, also a turning-away from uncomfortable ideas? You have blatantly demonstrated your denial.
No, it's just you being the quintessential "Black Knight" from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm
Petr
No, it's just you being the quintessential "Black Knight" from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Funny, Arthur had defeated the black knight. Do you think you have somehow defeated me? Given that you have only poorly addressed most issues, and failed to address others once they got too difficult, I think you're thinking too highly of yourself.
The Christ-ling is the egoist par excellence. In his criticisms of mysticism as a desire to want to be God, a thinking-too-highly of oneself, who does he criticize--if not himself and his own approach to life?
The Christ-ling is the egoist par excellence.
And self-refuting relativist like you cannot even explain what is wrong with being egoistic. "Whatever is, is right."
Petr
And self-refuting relativist like you cannot even explain what is wrong with being egoistic.
Who said I'm a relativist?
There is nothing 'wrong' with egoism save from a certain relative standpoint. Ego-inflation taken to an extreme, such as with your own self-indulgence, could be considered 'wrong' insofar as it is a delusional building-up of one's own self. What's 'wrong' with this is that it is blatantly delusional and terribly hypocritical. It's 'wrong' from your own perspective, and thus you are self-refuting.
I, on the other hand, have yet to see any refutation of my view. I've seen misunderstandings of it, though. There's plenty of that going on.
What's 'wrong' with this is that it is blatantly delusional and terribly hypocritical. It's 'wrong' from your own perspective, and thus you are self-refuting.
Non-Christians have no business of telling followers of Christ just what Christianity is all about. Ancient Christians did not take their internal quarrels to be settled by heathen judges, because they were fundamentally lacking the spiritual insight needed to deal with their issues. I am supporting a return to this policy.
I, on the other hand, have yet to see any refutation of my view.
Perhaps because there is nothing to refute, you inhabiting a world of meaningless abstractions?
Petr
Which is your opinion, and it therefore doesn't really matter in the face of anything approaching something truthful.
Since we are not living in an egalitarian world, the opinion I represent is superior to your opinion.
Petr
Ancient Christians did not take their internal quarrels to be settled by heathen judges, because they were fundamentally lacking the spiritual insight needed to deal with their issues. I am supporting a return to this policy.
I support a return of authority to those with spiritual insight, too, which is why you should perhaps listen to me. ;) I am of course no Christ, but at least far above the base notion of 'spirituality' that you uphold.
Perhaps because there is nothing to refute, you inhabiting a world of meaningless abstractions?
It almost sounds like you are beginning understand, but I think you lack the courage to find truth.
Since we are not living in an egalitarian world, the opinion I represent is superior to your opinion.
Yep, more Christianity here, more evasion.
It almost sounds like you are beginning understand, but I think you lack the courage to find truth.
You are wandering in a labyrinth of egoistic abstractions that Satan has built for you, not me. We are not equal in our status, you see.
Btw, I just noticed that you are just an all-knowing snot-nosed 18-year old. Perhaps there's still hope for you. :p
Petr
Sinclair
11-15-2005, 08:57 PM
It doesn't matter whether or not ID is right, whether it is scientifically accurate, because being right isn't going to win any battles.
That ID "fits in" better doesn't prove anything. We don't really understand evolution. So it doesn't fit together... Yet. If ID is just something humans made up, of course it will fit in better, because there's no loose ends we can't figure out yet. Because it was thought up to not have loose ends.
And if God DID play a role in designing living creatures, well, He certainly could have done better with the knees. :D
I just noticed that you are just an all-knowing snot-nosed 18-year old. Perhaps there's still hope for you.
Well, I apparently sold my soul to Satan, or some such, so I hope not.
And if God DID play a role in designing living creatures, well, He certainly could have done better with the knees.
God is testing us. :p
Helios Panoptes
11-15-2005, 09:16 PM
It's exactly the same with evolution, which cannot be verified with experiments. The dogma of spontaneous evolution could be cut off right now, and the real science would suffer no harm. Actually it would benefit greatly as childish and exorbitantly expensive Darwinist programs like searching life from space (SETI) would be canceled.
Petr
Evolution would be falsified if we found anachronistic fossils. Such fossils demonstrating an organism that has made no transition and has inexplicably fallen from the sky would put an end to evolution. In the case of ID, it is completely unfalsifiable. That is, one cannot even conceive of a discovery that could put a dent in it. Really, there is a difference.
Well, I apparently sold my soul to Satan, or some such, so I hope not.
There you go flattering yourself once again. You don't need any specific deals with devil to be under his influence. Your inherited original sin is quite enough for that.
Petr
Excorcism
11-15-2005, 11:24 PM
Meaningless ad hominem. Furthermore, I would claim that ID is a growing underground movement within the academia which is mostly afraid to "come out of the closet" because of fear of losing funding and even sacking. Just the same as with other un-PC subjects. Besides, scientists are capable of being herd-souls as anyone else.
We will overcome.
overcome what exactly? scientific proof founded on empirical data?
Excorcism
11-15-2005, 11:26 PM
God is testing us. :p
I'd say teasing, but whatever :D
overcome what exactly? scientific proof founded on empirical data?
True science is clearly on our side. Life on this planet is a product of design, spontaneous evolution of all life is a technical impossibility, and those who refuse to see it are willfully blind.
There are theophobes whose whole secular worldview would collapse if they would have to admit that they are ultimately not "self-made men" but under Higher Authority. They have a very strong psychological motivation to detest even deistic Intelligent Design with active prejudice, not even mentioning Biblical creationism.
Amazing admission
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Reference
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp
Most modern laymen just accept evolution like sheep, following the establishment unthinkingly, and can change their minds very quickly should the creationists become kings of the hill. Darwinists should well realize the concept that in their worldview, the truth is nothing more than the opinion of the powerful.
Besides all this, Darwinism happens to contain the seeds of its own destruction, as Darwin himself hinted at:
"But the other part of Rorty's suggestion is where the real intellectual danger in Darwin's dangerous idea lies (at any rate if Rorty's "Truth" is just ordinary everyday truth). Why so? Here I can only hint at the argument. [ 13 ] Darwin's dangerous idea is really two ideas put together: philosophical naturalism together with the claim that our cognitive faculties have originated by way of natural selection working on some form of genetic variation. According to this idea, then, the purpose or function of those faculties (if they have one) is to enable or promote survival, or survival and reproduction, more exactly, the maximization of fitness (the probability of survival and reproduction). Furthermore, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (i.e., furnish us with a preponderance of true beliefs) on Darwin's dangerous idea is either low or inscrutable (i.e., impossible to estimate). But either gives the devotee of evolutionary naturalism a defeater for the proposition that his cognitive faculties are reliable, a reason for doubting, giving up, rejecting that natural belief. If so, then it also gives him a reason for doubting any beliefs produced by those faculties. This includes, of course, the beliefs involved in science itself. Evolutionary naturalism, therefore, provides one who accepts it with a defeater for scientific beliefs, a reason for doubting that science does in fact get us to the truth, or close to the truth. [ 14 ] Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism:
"With me," says Darwin, "the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [ 15 ]
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17942&highlight=plantinga
Petr
Vindex
11-16-2005, 12:27 AM
I agree with intelligent Design as do most people. I just disagree with who did the Designing.
Kodos
11-16-2005, 12:58 AM
umm...go to a college. I don't mean community college either, I mean colleges with renouned biology programs. Then ask the professors and doctors there, who know far more than this quack who wrote the article, and ask him/her about Intelligent Design with its faulty logic and no scientific support.
Petr is a somewhat humorless fanatic but hes right here... Darwinian evolution requires random mutations to yield something better and to spread itself throughout a species... something by itself very improbably. And somehow by the repetition of this improbable mechanism you can get from amino acids to a human being.
This is at an extremely extremely low order of probability unless there is some principle at work we don't understand. Im not endorsing genesis Im just saying mutations are probably LaMarckian due to some principle we don't understand...
Felix the Cat
11-16-2005, 06:25 AM
Petr is a somewhat humorless fanatic but hes right here... Darwinian evolution requires random mutations to yield something better and to spread itself throughout a species... something by itself very improbably. And somehow by the repetition of this improbable mechanism you can get from amino acids to a human being.
This is at an extremely extremely low order of probability unless there is some principle at work we don't understand. Im not endorsing genesis Im just saying mutations are probably LaMarckian due to some principle we don't understand...
Five thousand million years is a long, long time...
Only if you insist on a 10,000 year old earth does evolution seem miraculous
Excorcism
11-16-2005, 07:04 AM
I don't know, they all sound like theories to me. :D Oh well, I used to ask questions like "why are we here?" all the time. I'm convinced we were an accident. lol.
Kodos
11-17-2005, 04:21 AM
Five thousand million years is a long, long time...
Yet over that period of time things of complex order should likely decay according to our current understanding of science... you would not expect a great city to be put together by shifting weather patterns and occasional catastrophes of nature... you'd definitely see one destroyed( without upkeep) though.
Kodos
11-17-2005, 04:24 AM
I don't know, they all sound like theories to me. :D Oh well, I used to ask questions like "why are we here?" all the time. I'm convinced we were an accident. lol.
Considering the enourmous level of molecular complexity in living systems and the fact that it flies in the face of entropy( things tend to go to lower levels of order)... the order of probability based on our current understanding of nature is infinitesimly low.
Considering the enourmous level of molecular complexity in living systems and the fact that it flies in the face of entropy( things tend to go to lower levels of order)... the order of probability based on our current understanding of nature is infinitesimly low.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
Anarch
11-17-2005, 08:22 AM
Petr is a somewhat humorless fanatic but hes right here... Darwinian evolution requires random mutations to yield something better and to spread itself throughout a species... something by itself very improbably. And somehow by the repetition of this improbable mechanism you can get from amino acids to a human being.
This is at an extremely extremely low order of probability unless there is some principle at work we don't understand. Im not endorsing genesis Im just saying mutations are probably LaMarckian due to some principle we don't understand...
Lamarkian? Well then - the question remains: after several thousand years of getting sliced, why are Jewish kids born with foreskins?
Petr, here's an interesting one. Please provide evidence that such a thing as a soul exists.
Petr, here's an interesting one. Please provide evidence that such a thing as a soul exists.
A philistine question. The existence of life (as apart from dead matter) is a supernatural wonder in itself.
Petr
However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.
This is a typical evolutionist form of bluffing. This article happens to respond precisely to the piece above by Mark Isaak:
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo
Order vs. Organized Complexity
Isaak argues that Creationists try to “get around” something by claiming that
“the information carried by living things lets them create order...but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.”
What Isaak says here reveals some confusion on his part, between simple “order” and “organized complexity.” All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form.
On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.
Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.
To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be exactly what Isaak has done.
Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:
“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers my polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty:
- his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error
- life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms
- the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the elements involved).
Petr
Anarch
11-17-2005, 10:54 AM
Petr: If by supernatural you mean something beyond reason, then it is inappropriate for us to even speak, let alone pretend we comprehend, what 'the soul' is - yet this 'soul' is the being of human beings, assuming your position is correct. I have asked you to demonstrate the existence of the soul, and you have resorted to mysticism - something you claim to despise - which is to claim ignorance. From this position, logically (it would be interesting to see if you can make any pretensions at logic thus far) you should stay silent about it. Yet you do not.
Also - Petr, why object to infinite regression?
I have asked you to demonstrate the existence of the soul, and you have resorted to mysticism - something you claim to despise - which is to claim ignorance.
I would actually characterize my answer as anti-mystical - I simply meant that all life, all DNA, is programmed and designed. It is infinitely different in itself from dead matter.
(Besides, your question was not exactly dealing with the topic of this thread. jcs has already done enough to hijack this thread with his mumblings.)
And yes, I loath empty pagan mysticism. It only produces self-centered chatter.
Petr
Anarch
11-18-2005, 12:36 AM
Designed by who? God?
Empress Cheesatine
11-18-2005, 01:33 AM
Intelligent design, yet with critical flaws. Its as if someone made 3/4 of a house and walked away or dropped dead.
Intelligent design, yet with critical flaws. Its as if someone made 3/4 of a house and walked away or dropped dead.
The current imperfect state of the world is due to the Fall of Man. Deistic Intelligent Design cannot explain it (unless it posits that God created us to be tormented on purpose), but Biblical creationism can.
Really, evolutionists reveal how shallow thinkers they are when they insist that there are no real differences between ID and creationism, that the former is just the latter in drag. Actually ID is essentially Deistic (the designer might be just about anyone, but design is obvious anyways), creationism is essentially Christian.
Petr
Really, evolutionists reveal how shallow thinkers they are when they insist that there are no real differences between ID and creationism, that the former is just the latter in drag. Actually ID is essentially Deistic (the designer might be just about anyone, but design is obvious anyways), creationism is essentially Christian.
Well, to the God-denying evolutionist, there isn't much of a difference. He just wants to show that there is no rational, scientific basis for the belief in any creator whatsoever (which there isn't, but that's faith for you). Some of these anti-creators have a little 'There absolutely isn't any God' faith of their own, though (Dawkins' followers, for example). But to the anti-teleological evolutionist, the Creationist is a far greater enemy.
3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings -- even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing. Can science really plug a finger into every hole in the Darwinian dyke for the next fifty years?
I was just re-reading G.K. Chesterton's famous essay on the similarities between a madman and an extreme rationalist, and saw something that pretty well matches with Douglas Kern's evaluation above:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch2.html
"But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel. The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane."
Petr
Berianidze
04-03-2006, 03:16 PM
The public may buy intelligent design, but you'd have a much more difficult time with the scientific community. Those in the public (and the fraction of a percentile withing the scientific community who endorse ID) use loose terms in describing evolution. For instance, people like to use the terminology of evolution against it. This is laughable mostly due to the fact that they are using layman's terms to try and explain what a scientific theory is--and showing complete contempt for the scientific method. For those whom try to disregard the credibility of the "THEORY" of evolution, they are forgetting (or completely ignorant to the fact) that in science theory has a specific definition regarding the extremely high probability of likelihood. It's not a conspiracy theory, or the type of theory one composes when trying to explain how one has lost his job; it's a scientific theory.
In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observes. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truth. Science changes, evolves. However, this shouldn't be seen as a lack of adequacy for the theory of evolution, as verifiable facts always take precedence.
Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for any given phenomenon. This is called the scientific method.
In science, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science. When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory for explaining the original facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions.
Scientific theories are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may be eventually disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence. From a scientific perspective, ID fails.
Scentific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus focus research on more narrowly defined areas.
Higher levels of generalizations are formulated into scientific laws. A law identifies a class of regularities in nature from which ther has been no known deviation after many observations or trials. It is usually expressed mathematically. Scientific laws tell us the ways but not the whys of nature. Science accomodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its theories change and its activities broades as new facts come to light or new potentials are recognized.
In other words, scientists don't discredit Intelligent design simply because they don't like it or they don't like the end result. They don't reject it out of their atheist hatred of a "higher being," they reject the fact that it was botched together and offers no scientific evidence, and indeed, relies on hypotheses far greater than can be explained through physical experiments or observations.
Sinclair
04-03-2006, 09:49 PM
Gloating, which is pretty much what it is, over the fact that ID might win because of public opinion, is like gloating over the fact that rap is more popular than classical music. OK, so, the public likes something better.
That doesn't make it right, worthwhile, etc.
Blut_Und_Boden
04-04-2006, 10:41 PM
Gloating, which is pretty much what it is, over the fact that ID might win because of public opinion, is like gloating over the fact that rap is more popular than classical music. OK, so, the public likes something better.
That doesn't make it right, worthwhile, etc.
You echo my sentiments on such things greatly. People as a mass organism, especially in modern America, are dumb as hell and will generally like anything, given that it has enough perks and celophane wrapped around it.
So saying that something is cool becasue most of the American Population likes it is funny as fuck.
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 05:06 AM
This is a typical evolutionist form of bluffing. This article happens to respond precisely to the piece above by Mark Isaak
Your idiocy never fails to astound me. Just when I think that the congitive content of your psychotic ramblings has hit a sub-simian low, your surprise me with something even more utterly imbecilic. You have absolutely no knolwedge of, and even less interest in science, so this will be way over your head, but for the benefit of the gallery I will post a refuation of Cretinist rantings about "organized complexity."
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:
The absolutely appaling dishonesty of Cretinists is beyond the pale. Apparently "though shalt not lie" does not apply when the faithful must rally to defend the Genesis fairy-tale against critics.
The implication of the quote intended by creationists is that Prigogine et al are showing an inconsistency between thermodynamics and the natural formation of biological systems.
The truth is exactly the reverse: far from proposing thermodynamics as a problem for the origins of life, the quoted paper is proposing that thermodynamics and the second law is a major contributing factor to the spontaneous formation of complex structures in prebiotic evolution.
It is good practice to identify secondary sources used to obtain such quotes; and to check the quote personally. This may help avoid perpetuating a deceit.
Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977 for his work in thermodynamics, which was about how dissipative systems form in open systems far from equilibrium. Biological systems are an example.
Most of the article from which you are quoting is on-line; to read it, click on this link. I will give some extracts and discussion here; for more detail please go to the original article.
The article begins with a one sentence summary, as follows:
The functional order maintained within living systems seems to defy the Second Law; nonequilibrium thermodynamics describes how such systems come to terms with entropy.
That is, the article explains how the functional order of biological systems is consistent with the second law.
The article begins by showing a simple case for open systems close to equilibrium in which there is the possibility of the spontaneous formation of low entropy sub-systems. The quote you give appears here, to state that this particular principle does not work for biological systems.
Some more context to your quote:
Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the apparent contradiction between biological order and the laws of physics--in particular the second law of thermodynamics--cannot be resolved as long as we try to understand living systems by the methods of the familiar equilibrium statistical mechanics and equally familar thermodynamics.
That is, equilibrium thermodynamics is not what is required. Prigogine developed a theory of non-equilibrium thermodynamics which applies to systems far from equilibrium. There is no violation of the second law required; just the problem of applying thermodynamics to new kinds of systems. The next paragraph in the article considers the order apparent in biological systems a bit further, and concludes with this sentence:
One of our main points here shall be that an increase in dissipation is possible for nonlinear systems driven far from equilibrium. Such systems may be subject to a succession of unstable transitions that lead to spatial order and to increasing entropy production.
The next section addresses Nonequilibrium open systems, and then the section after directly addresses evolution.
What is the thermodynamic meaning of prebiological evolution? Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest" through natural selection can only apply once pre biological evolution has led to the formation of some primitive living beings. A new evolutionary principle, proposed recently by Manfred Eigen, would replace Darwin's idea in the context of prebiotic evolution. It amounts to optimizing a quantity measuring the faithfulness, or quality, of the macromolecules in reproducing themselves via template action. We here propose an alternative description of prebiological evolution. The main idea is the possibility that a prebiological system may evolve through a whole succession of transitions leading to a hierarchy of more and more complex and organized states. Such transitions can only arise in nonlinear systems that are maintained far from equilibrium; that is, beyond a certain critical threshold the steady-state regime becomes unstable and the system evolves to a new configuration. As a result, if the system is to be able to evolve through successive instabilities, a mechanism must be developed whereby each new transition favors further evolution by increasing the nonlinearity and the distance from equilibrium. One obvious mechanism is that each transition enables the system to increase the entropy production.
For a very brief and non-technical statement of what Prigogine is proposing....
The second law is, roughly, that entropy increases in all processes, or that heat will flow from hot things to cold things. Roughly speaking, entropy measures the extent to which energy is dissipated in a system. Open systems in a state of great energy flux (like the Earth) will tend to remain far from equilibrium. More importantly, Prigogine shows that in these conditions, ordered structures tend to form which facilitate the net dissipation of energy. Such systems help to drive the universe as a whole to states of increasing entropy, while being maintained in ordered state themselves. The paper goes on to give examples.
Far from proposing thermodynamics as a problem for the origins of life, this paper is proposing that thermodynamics and the second law is a major contributing factor to the spontaneous formation of complex dissipative structures in prebiotic evolution.
See also
* New Insights into Thermodynamics by Jerry Albert, in the Sept 1978 issue of the Journal of the ASA. The ASA describes themselves thus:
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
* The presentation speech for Prigogine's Nobel prize.
* Prigogine's Nobel lecture.
[Professor Prigogine has kindly reviewed this feedback at my request, and concurs with my conclusion that the quoted paper is proposing that thermodynamics and the second law as a contributing factor, not a problem. Any errors or defects this response, however, remain my own.]
Source (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html#Prigogine)
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 05:15 AM
A more thorough exploration of complexity in biological systems.
Abstract
To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.
Full Article: Evolution of biological complexity (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463)
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 05:21 AM
The absolutely appaling dishonesty of Cretinists is beyond the pale. Apparently "though shalt not lie" does not apply when the faithful must rally to defend the Genesis fairy-tale against critics.
This despicable and disigneous Cretinist debate tactic, called "quote mining", wherein Cretinists deliberately misquote scientists so as to give the inaccurate impression that scientists "really prefer Cretinism" over the science to which they dedicate their entire careers, deserves more detailed treatment. I've posted this before, but it bears posting again, so as to demonstrate to what kind of lows religious fanatics are willing to stoop to in order to build up an aura of invincibility over their absurd dellusions.
One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].
For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure, the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" [3].
...
Full Article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html)
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 05:25 AM
True science is clearly on our side.
Petr.
Fortunately, it is not, because the definition of "true science" isn't "those hypotheses that conform to the bizzare hallucinations and dellusions of epileptic ancient Hebrew goat-herders."
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 05:38 AM
Yet over that period of time things of complex order should likely decay according to our current understanding of science... you would not expect a great city to be put together by shifting weather patterns and occasional catastrophes of nature... you'd definitely see one destroyed( without upkeep) though.
Wiekel, do you think it is more likely that the 99.9% of scientists who embrace the theory of evolution have no understanding of basic thermodynamics, or that the handful of cretinist nutcases who claim that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics really have no clue what in hell they are talking about?
Fade the Butcher
04-05-2006, 05:39 AM
This despicable and disigneous Cretinist debate tactic, called "quote mining", wherein Cretinists deliberately misquote scientists so as to give the inaccurate impression that scientists "really prefer Cretinism" over the science to which they dedicate their entire careers, deserves more detailed treatment.
Sulla does the same thing.
This despicable and disigneous Cretinist debate tactic, called "quote mining", wherein Cretinists deliberately misquote scientists so as to give the inaccurate impression that scientists "really prefer Cretinism" over the science to which they dedicate their entire careers, deserves more detailed treatment. I've posted this before, but it bears posting again, so as to demonstrate to what kind of lows religious fanatics are willing to stoop to in order to build up an aura of invincibility over their absurd dellusions.
The evo-propagandists are liars themselves when they accuse creationists of quoting evolutionist scientists out of context. We hardly ever give the impression that such-and-such scientist "really prefers Cretinism", but present them precisely as hostile witnesses, which therefore makes their admissions all the more valuable.
Like Douglas Kern put it in the article at the beginning of this thread:
"A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening."
So it's not the case of "quoting out context", but about whistleblowing Darwinist trade secrets. Just like Jews, evolutionists have this "not in front of public" attitude on settling their (numerous) internal scores and dirty laundry.
"No cameras!"
PS: You are one maniacally hostile, hissing snake. Try to behave with some dignity.
Petr
Wiekel, do you think it is more likely that the 99.9% of scientists who embrace the theory of evolution
What is the exact source for this statistic? Please do not answer with non-specific hyperbole.
Petr
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 06:41 AM
What is the exact source for this statistic? Please do not answer with non-specific hyperbole.
Petr
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
...
Source (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995).
Yeah right, "relevant fields". That's a qute way of messing with the original score. "Lies, big lies and statistics..."
I also think that ID movement has made progress since the early 1990s.
Scott Adams (evolutionist himself) estimated the number of evo-defenders as 90+ %
http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1664&highlight=scott+adams
[B]The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?
Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”
Petr
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 06:49 AM
Yeah right, "relevant fields".
Yes, relevant fields. Only a misologist ignoramus like yourself would insist that a computer scientist, a sociologist, or a civil engineer is as qualified to speak on the subject of biological evolution as a biologist, geologist, paleonthologist or biochemist.
I also think that ID movement has made progress since the early 1990s.
Yes, it's been conclusively rejected by the scientific community, and shown, in courts of law, to be nothing more than a ruse for religious indoctrination masquerading as science, attempting to "wedge (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)" into public education, where it has no place.
Petyr Baelish
04-05-2006, 07:25 AM
Scott Adams (evolutionist himself) estimated the number of evo-defenders as 90+ %
Scott Adams isn't an "evo-defender". He has a B.A. in economics from a no-name college, and is far from an authority on evolution.
A developmental biologist critiques Scott Adams’ take on evolution (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/)
P.S. Learn some elementary arithmetic. 99.9% (the percentage of life and earth scientists who embrace evolution) falls within the 90%+ set.
Sulla the Dictator
04-07-2006, 03:34 AM
Sulla does the same thing.
You're not a scientist.
Also, I've accurately represented your manic sea changes. :p
Kodos
04-07-2006, 03:47 AM
Wiekel, do you think it is more likely that the 99.9% of scientists who embrace the theory of evolution have no understanding of basic thermodynamics, or that the handful of cretinist nutcases who claim that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics really have no clue what in hell they are talking about?
I don't think creationist no what they are talking about either( young earth creationists are nuts because they ignore fossil records and radiocarbon dating). But I don't think the mechanism of evolution is well understood. It is mathematically almost impossible that natural selection could explain how the 1st cell developed let alone reproduced. Nor how if a new specimen evolves due to a mutation how it would have a ready female available to propagate the whole species...
Your looking at a series of very very very improbable events. Evolution has to be what somewhat LaMarckian in a way we don't understand to make sense.
And most biologists are very poor at physics and mathematics compared to scientists in other fields, it was the only major at my engineering school dominated by women. The reason why is they couldn't handle the mathematical intensity of other subjects. The only type of scientists who could really comment with expertise on evolution vs thermodynamics are biophysicists... a rather rare group.
Petyr Baelish
04-07-2006, 04:00 AM
I don't think creationist no what they are talking about either( young earth creationists are nuts because they ignore fossil records and radiocarbon dating).
We are on the same page as far as that's concerned, then.
But I don't think the mechanism of evolution is well understood.
You're wrong here. We understand evolution better than we understand most concepts in physics (gravity, for example).
It is mathematically almost impossible that natural selection could explain how the 1st cell developed let alone reproduced.
Therein lies a major source of confusion; it is not the purpose of evolution to describe how life arose. That is the function of theories like abiogenesis and panspermia, which are admittedly far weaker than evolution. Evolution is rock-solid, and abiogensis is weak; this is very convenient for Cretinists who intentionally obfuscate the difference between the two.
Nor how if a new specimen evolves due to a mutation how it would have a ready female available to propagate the whole species.
Evolution affects populations, not individuals. The Cretinists would have you believe that evolution suggests that man's origin lies as the freak mutant offspring of a an ape; in fact, evolution postulates no such scenario. You should pick up a copy of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins; it's a very informative introduction to evolutionary theory, especially its more counter-intuitive aspects.
Your looking at a series of very very very improbable events.
The improbablity of abiogenetic mechanisms is vastly overexaggerated by Cretinists. For the sake of argument, let's say that the probablity of a series of carbon and hydrogen molecules spontaneously forming polyethylene without a catalyst is 10^-20. Very prohibitive odds indeed. However, if we are dealing with 10^60 carbon molecules, 10^65 hydrogen molecules, and a time-span of 2*10^9 years, the odds become far more palatable. That point deserves to be reiterated: when we speak of the prebiotic "chemical soup" that preceded life, we are talking about vast, vast quantities of organic compounds covering the entire surface of the eart, large quantities of energy from the sun and from atmosphreic disturbance, and finally, a timescale of billions of years. Abiogenesis is a much weaker theory than evolution (and it should be pointed out that the two are distinct theories), but in its defense, it is intentionally maligned by Cretinists to sound much less probable than it is in fact.
Evolution has to be what somewhat LaMarckian in a way we don't understand to make sense.
Abiogensis, working upon inanimate matter may have had a "Lamarckian" component, but biological evolution does not.
Kodos
04-07-2006, 04:08 AM
Therein lies a major source of confusion; it is not the prupose of evolution to describe how life arose. That is the function of theories like abiogensis and panspermia, which are admittedly far weaker than evolution. Evolution is rock-solid, and abiogensis is weak; this is very convenient for Cretinists who intentionally obfuscate the difference between the two.
Ah okay, I didn't know such a distinction existed( given that Darwin titled his work "On the Origin of Species").
I'll get that book.
Ah okay, I didn't know such a distinction existed( given that Darwin titled his work "On the Origin of Species").
Don't let them fool you, Weikel - that distinction does not really exist, not to any thinking person.
It has been lately fashionable among evos to try to distance themselves from the question of origin of life, and even (with genuine chutzpah!) to be outraged at evo-critics who dare to bring up such an embarrassing subject.
Petr
Petyr Baelish
04-07-2006, 07:59 AM
Don't let them fool you, Weikel - that distinction does not really exist, not to any thinking person.
Replace "thinking person" with "ignorant religious fanatic" and you've got a true statement. Take a freshman biology course, for Chrissake, you're embarassing yourself.
It has been lately fashionable among evos to try to distance themselves from the question of origin of life, and even (with genuine chutzpah!) to be outraged at evo-critics who dare to bring up such an embarrassing subject.
Petr
That's because evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct theories, a fact that even the better-educated Cretinists acknowledge.
Kodos
04-07-2006, 08:04 AM
Don't let them fool you, Weikel - that distinction does not really exist, not to any thinking person.
My biology backround doesn't extend beyond AP bio( which didn't cover this distinction to the best of my recollection) and some microbiology books ive glanced through. I'm going to read( eventually... or maybe glance through) the book PS reccomended to see and decide for myself.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.