Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Computers, whether embodied in silicon or cells, are material and do not require angels to push them around. Whether cells exhibit algorithmic behavior or not, they are behaving according to natural laws.
Nothing Shapiro or Yockey have to say about the behavior of cells requires outside design or guidance in order for evolution to occur. Shapiro specifically addresses the question of front loading of information and denies it exists. Yockey specifically addresses the question of irreducible complexity and says it doesn’t exist.
As for how the first cells originated, an honest person will say he doesn’t know.
No, he specifically addresses "Does ‘non-random’ suggest that the very instructions for all possible morphological changes are front loaded or pre-programmed into living things". See the "all possible" in there? That is why he later denies "rigidness" and "pre-determined".
Finally in the post-chat q&A session after the period containing the citation above, you will find this exchange.
cougar
OK, molecular networks have computational properties. Complex systems seem to have inherent natural order. How does this connect to the ongoing evolution of the system?
James Shapiro
Cougar, your question goes to the heart of the issue. The ability of cells to rewrite their hereditary information and their ability to regulate that process are fundamental to what I think of as a 21st Century view of evolution. We know a lot about the molecular mechanisms involved. Our understandinbg of the computational processes involved are the weak point.
You mean the Q&A session where this appeared?
“James Shapiro
Phil, I think the key problem is to get genuinely new inventions in evolution. This clearly happens. Otherwise we are back with the homunculus and preformationism.”
I'm still not convinced it makes sense to speak of something happening outside natural laws when there were no natural laws. But I'll tell you why I'm so reluctant to use that term: some people here like to play definition games with words like "faith" and "theory," conflating two senses of the word to try and say "gotcha." I don't want to get into a position where I acknowledge the big bang was "super-natural" by your definition, and then have someone say "you already said science dealt with the supernatural, so why does it ignore God?" I'm not saying you have that intention, but I'd rather just agree that the big bang happened outside currently known natural laws, and leave it at that.
So you're saying that the big bang brought about gravity?
In any sense meaningful to us, yes.
Do you ever wonder where the source substance for the big bang came from?
Nope. And as with "natural laws," I'm not sure "source substance" has any real meaning. But I'd have to ask a physicist.
What about the drastic gap between the intelligence of the human and his next closest living non-human ancestor? Wouldn't you expect there to be some intermediate, if evolution is true?
Not necessarily. Maybe we killed off or outcompeted any species that had that potential, like the Neanderthals. Maybe there's no survival advantage in being smarter than chimps until you're as much smarter as we are. Besides, the chimp is intermediate between us and the next smartest ape--how fine-grained a progression do you want? How do you know how fine-grained it should be?
with the number of generations that would have been required plus the number of different branches there were, we should be seeing enormous numbers of fossils
I don't think so. Think of all the people that have ever lived--current estimates run around 100 billion. Shouldn't we be up to our necks in old bones by this point? Even just considering historical times, they estimate 300 million people were alive in the year zero. Do we have 300 million skeletons from that time? No, because most dead things get eaten and decay--that anything survives even a few hundred years takes luck or protective measures.
How would you rate your certainty that the hypotheses of "Amoeba to man" is correct?
I would say that I have nearly 100 percent confidence in the theory.
Yes, so what? That is addressing his denial of "strictness" or "pre-determined" This is the question he was answering.
phil
For Prof. Shapiro Spetner has suggested that much of what passes for evolution is response to stress by expression of information already present in the genome. Is he positing something similar to what you presented?
You have a habit of leaving important context out, as in your post 859. Here is the full quote.
MEYER: Well, you have to know a little bit more about the science. The mutational processes that I was just talking about are running downhill informationally. Eventually if you keep mutating the systems, that temporary advantage is going to be swamped the destruction of proteins in protein machines that are involved in information processing. So you can’t extrapolate from a system that is running downhill informationally to explain the origin of large amounts of new functional information. That requires something new. I had an article recently in a London newspaper, and a professor wrote in who works on computational simulations of evolutionary theory. He says, “I don’t see why they both can’t be true.” He says, “What I see is the programmer puts the original information in the system and then evolution takes over from there.” James Shapiro, the University of Chicago, is working on pre-programmed adaptive capacity. And my friend, Paul Nelson, went and talked to him; they were on a panel – Shapiro said, “You know, I can’t make heads or tails of what you guys are talking about with intelligent design.” And Nelson went to talk to Shapiro and he said, “Look, you’re really into this idea of pre-programmed adaptive capacity as a kind of alternative to strict Darwinism. We think that’s a neat phenomenon. Let me ask you a question, Jim. Where does the programming come from in the first place?” And Shapiro apparently said to Nelson, “You know, I rarely think about that.” And Nelson said, “But that’s what we think about and I think the two can go together. There are real evolutionary phenomenon that can be studied, but the origination of the programming is something that I think requires design.” [applause]
Are you actually so dishonest as to suggest that your word salad actually gives context to what Shapiro said? Shapiro can’t possibly be aware of the verbiage that surrounds his quote.
“James Shapiro, the University of Chicago, is working on pre-programmed adaptive capacity. And my friend, Paul Nelson, went and talked to him; they were on a panel – Shapiro said, “You know, I can’t make heads or tails of what you guys are talking about with intelligent design.” And Nelson went to talk to Shapiro and he said, “Look, you’re really into this idea of pre-programmed adaptive capacity as a kind of alternative to strict Darwinism. We think that’s a neat phenomenon. Let me ask you a question, Jim. Where does the programming come from in the first place?” And Shapiro apparently said to Nelson, “You know, I rarely think about that.” “
All the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant to Shapiro’s statement and the question he addresses. Why do you suppose Shapiro says he can’t make heads or tails out of intelligent design? He is obviously aware of ID claims.
Why do you suppose Shapiro says Behe is unfortunately injecting religion into science?
And going back to the Q&A in which you appeared, Why do you suppose Shapiro blew off rather specific questions about the “gaps” between the common ancestors of apes and humans?
And why does he insist on the phrase “natural genetic engineering” rather than engineering injected by an outside designer?
Dishonest? You're the one that posted a partial reference. The only reason you have to believe that Shapiro actually made that statement is the context from which you extracted it. It is not a word salad. It is the context of his statement, the gist of which is "You know, I rarely think about that". About what? "Where does the programming come from, in the first place?"
But that is a question down the road from your citation of the initial Shapiro quote. Which you apparently intend as the subject of this.
All the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant to Shapiro’s statement and the question he addresses.
What question is it that he addresses?
Again, you keep losing the original argument concerning DNA and computer code.
Finally, to answer another of your red herring.
And why does he insist on the phrase “natural genetic engineering” rather than engineering injected by an outside designer?
His words ----
“You know, I rarely think about that.” “
No, I posted the entire exchange with Shapiro. Your "context" is completely unrelated to anything Shapiro was involved in or aware of at the time he made his statement. the "context" is a lie and a fraud.
What question is it that he addresses?
Good question. Your source doesn't give any actual context for the "heads or tails" remark. I take it as a general observation on the universe of ID research and writing.
Shapiro's response to the question of where the programming comes from originally is very telling. It's clearly an opportunity for Shapiro to make some philosophical or theological pronouncement, but he refrains. Perhaps because he doesn't have an answer and is simply being honest.
No you didn't. What you posted was what Meyer stated that a friend of his stated that Shapiro stated. Now obviously, Shapiro did not just blurt out, "You know, I can’t make heads or tails of what you guys are talking about with intelligent design." and then complete his entire conversation with "You know, I rarely think about that." That is why the context is important. Since the concept that is being broached in Meyer's total quote is "So you can’t extrapolate from a system that is running downhill informationally to explain the origin of large amounts of new functional information. That requires something new. I had an article recently in a London newspaper, and a professor wrote in who works on computational simulations of evolutionary theory. He says, “I don’t see why they both can’t be true.” He says, “What I see is the programmer puts the original information in the system and then evolution takes over from there."
When Shapiro expresses his confusion as to what ID addresses, Paul Nelson, Meyer's friend, sets up the basis for answering Shapiro's confusion. That answer is "But that’s what we think about and I think the two can go together. There are real evolutionary phenomenon that can be studied, but the origination of the programming is something that I think requires design. Which two? 1. Shapiro's work 2. The origin of the programming.
Shapiro was being honest.
"Methodological Naturalism is based on dogmatic assumptions that, among other things, there is no God.""No, it's not. It's based on the reality that methodological investigation and measurement of natural phenomena is the most effective way to produce scientific results. This assumption is reinforced both by the methodology's usefulness and success, and by the unavailability of any useful or successful methodology for investigating or measuring supernatural phenomena.
In short, no one has yet come up with a "methodological supernaturalism" that produces repeatable or practical scientific information.Scientists Interpret the available evidence according to Methodological Naturalism.As they must. Scientific information must be ideologically neutral to be of use. You may personally choose to put a subsequent theological spin on derived information, but the archive of scientific information is itself unconcerned with your theology.It is these Atheistic assumptions being applied to science that YEC's have a beef with.And the best way to express this "beef" with methodological naturalism is to propose and demonstrate a "methodological supernaturalism" that has some practical application for science.
I, for one, would be very interested.
Once agian, quoting post 293"This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations."[excerpt]
You have gone from misreading to simply making stuff up. Try making your point without injecting verbiage that isn’t in the original.
Obviously not, but there is no clue as to what specific thing he was responding to. I suggest you read the entire context, in which it is clear that Shapiro is not included in the conversation leading up to his quotation. He isn't even in the room.
What is clear from the general writings and interviews of Shapiro is that he always distances himself from any implication that his conjectures require supernatural intervention. What he describes is an entirely naturalistic process. He goes to great pains to criticise Behe for failing to see that the ability of computers to execute algorithms demonstrates the ability of natural systems to behave intelligently.
Are you nuts? All of the blue in my post 869 along with the quotes in the rest of my post are from the original. The remaining words make my point.
Why don't we move past the philosophical arm waving and talk about specific examples.
Can you provide an example of evidence clearly indicating a non-natural explanation? And how, in the absence of investigation and exclusion of all possible natural explanations, does one specifically go about deriving this explanation (in other words, how does one test for the supernatural)?
[[The primary examples of IC (flagella and the eye) have all been explained using existing theory and evidence, negating the claims of ID]
Sorry- that is a false statement- The ‘explanations’ simply reduce NON vital components of the IC system and can NOT account for the vital IC components arising from stewpwise macroeovlution. Miller tried to explain it away dismantling NON vital elements and showing how they ‘could have’ arisen- however all Miller accomplished was showing how htese NON vital components of IC an MICROEvolve and he never addressed the actual IC components themselvews because quite frankly- He was unable to and had absolutelty ZERO empiracle evidences with which to exp[lain or show how hte vital components could have arisen
[[The first issue is that origins must be separated from evolution]]
Says who? Both abiogensis and later macroeovlution BOTH share hte same biolgoical impossibilites- Startign at a later date won’t make htis impossibility dissappear, nor does it cause hte arguements to gain any more factual evidences. Whether Macroeovlution attempts to expalin the begiunnings or later macroeovlution, the problem still persists- it’s impossible- biolgoically impossible, for species to gain NEW non species specific information unles a process of lateral gene transference can be described which overcomes yet more serious impossibilities.
[[As far as evolution, it is in fact both a theory and a fact. The fact of evolution can be seen in every generation — it differs from the previous generation.]
Really? Mind pointing out htose “Facts”?
[[ Even creationists admit to evolution the fact as they accept “microevolution.” ]]
We’;ve NEVER disputed scientific FACTS that can be shown- all we dispute are the assumptions, which MACROEvolution is based antriely on evidenceless assumptions.
[[Some even accept “macroevolution” as they posit all existing species being formed from the original kinds since emerging from the ark]
Ah- tryign the sneaky tactic of blurring the scientific lines eh? This hsows that you apprently don’t understand hte massive differences between MICRO and MACRO evolution. Every change in species from the ark was due totally to MICROEvolution- NOT MACROEvolution- someone hwo understands the differences would know better than to suggest anythign different.
[[One (”Woodmorappe”) even posits that various species of fossil man developed after the flood, so he sees macroevolution as occurring much as scientists do but several hundred times faster and in reverse!]]
Sigh- Again- Woodmorrappe isn’t describing MACROEvolution- He is describing MICROEvolution- or rather MICRO- De Evolution- the loss of information- which as we know is absolutely a bilogical fact in nature.
[[So it is clear that evolution the fact is almost universally accepted.]]
intentionally (and with apparent deceit in mind) blurring hte scientific definition lines again!
[[The theory seeks to explain the facts of evolution. Because scientists can see evolution occurring all around us,]]
Macro or Micro Coyote?
[[and because virtually all of the data points in the same direction, they theorize common descent.]]
Only with shuffling and reorganization and claims that can NOT be backed up by the evidnece-
[[This is one of those theories that is probably 99.999% documented,]]
Realllly? Wow- you are certainly an overoptimistic fact denying advocate for sure.
[[So to your question, it does look like the evidence supports common descent and humans descending from ape-like critters.]]
This claim lacks scientific integrity and is nothign more than an opinion which ignores the billions of biological differences in the genome- again,. appealing to homologies and similarities doesn’t cut hte mustard when so much evidence refutes your claims.
[[It is pretty much the same for “intelligent design.” This is an idea that is inspired by religion]]
1. “Intelligent Design Creationism” is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.
Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as “intelligent design creationists.” Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term “intelligent design creationism” is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. “Intelligent design creationism” is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. “Intelligent design” is the proper neutral description of the theory.
2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.
Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)
3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.
The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation….” (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.
4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.
Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a “Faith Network” to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s “clergy outreach program” is “to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes” and to get church members to talk about “the theological implications of evolution.” (8) The NCSE’s “Faith Network Director” even claims that “Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God.” (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.
5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: “Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it’s just creationism in disguise. If so it’s a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.”
Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory”
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
Hope this helps
[[In short, no one has yet come up with a “methodological supernaturalism” that produces repeatable or practical scientific information]]
Nor does ID have to- nor do they even attempt to contrary to all the false claims abotu ID- ID merely has to scientifically show that naturalism is not the best (or even biolgogically possible) means for IC- and all they have to do to be a valid science is give neough evidence to show that intellgience is needed- just as any forensic scientist does- their scientific obligation does not have to go any further by suggesting or showing the supernatural means- this is somethign many objectors to ID are absolutely mistaken about and which form hteir false statements against ID.
[[You may personally choose to put a subsequent theological spin on derived information, but the archive of scientific information is itself unconcerned with your theology.]]
Which ios good news for ID because hte evidence shows that the ideological assumption that Macroeovlution happened refutes hte idea altogether.
[[And the best way to express this “beef” with methodological naturalism is to propose and demonstrate a “methodological supernaturalism” that has some practical application for science.]]
No it isn’t. That is a false statement- ID isn’t about a ‘beef’, and it certainlky does not, as explained above, need to demonstrate any methodological supernaturalism- if htat were the core of science, then scientists who study Macroevolution would have to produce the methodology by wich species supernaturally violated biolgoy and natural laws- so by claiming hwat you just did, you have given an opinion about science that shows the hypothesis that youbeleive in is actually unscientific.- niether side need produce a methodolgical supernaturalism- they simply have to give neough factual science to point in one direction or the other (and further to show hte opposition hypothesis isn’t biolgically possible)
He's not in the room?? What a surprise? /sarc How do even remotely think that I supposed he was there after I criticised you for asserting that you had "posted the entire exchange" by pointing out that "What you posted was what Meyer stated that a friend of his stated that Shapiro stated."? I read the entire context of that renamed link. I know that you are citing the eeeeviiiil Discovery intstitute and the eeeeviiiill Stephen Meyer. The irony is delicious.
What is clear from the general writings and interviews of Shapiro is that he always distances himself from any implication that his conjectures require supernatural intervention.
You are doing what you accused me of doing, "making things up". This brings up another delicious irony, "Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is yes.", Shapiro stated that. You harp on the second question that has a yes answer. What was the first question which is answered yes?
[[I have seen several articles on radiocarbon dating, one of my fields of study, which posit a need to recalibrate radiocarbon dates based on the effects of the global flood on carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. This is an example of religion overriding evidence.]]
This is an opinion based on sound scientific facts- IF the flood did happen, and many have evidence that it did, then this event would have thrown off the calculations and or readings- that is a scientific fact- not a religious belief- At least get your accusations more factually correct- It is your OPINION that the readings do not have to be recalculated- while other’s opinions are thaT they should be for the reasons given.
[[By accepting religion as the overriding source of “knowledge” in their lives they cease to follow the scientific method.]]
And you have evidence that every scientist who believes in creation have ‘ceased following the evidnece’? It’s easy enough to make hte accusations- but a much different story when you’re called to the carpet to back up your claim with FACTS. Anyone can make any kind of accusations they like- but hte TRUTH will refute the false accusations every time.
[[That is why the theory of evolution is considered to be such a strong theory. It could have been seriously damaged by the new field of genetics in the last 50-60 years, but it was supported instead. New findings have been fitting in quite well, with only very minor tweaking of the details]]
This is another overoptimistic false claim- the biolgoical evidences do NOT more fully support Macroevolution- if anythign- they show more and more that it simply is biologically impossible- but thanks for weighing in with your OPINION on the matter- no matter how contrary to the facts your opinion may be.
[[”This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations.”[excerpt]
Methodological Naturalism can not give a non-naturalistic explanation, even if the evidence clearly indicates a non-naturalistic explanation.
Methodological Naturalism makes the philosophical assumption that all things are naturalistic and all explanations must be naturalistic, regardless of evidence.
That is simply dogmatic Atheism.]]
Exactly- well put-
Why are you so averse to spell check? Your posts are unreadable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.