Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
The article is an initial contribution of resources for the project – whether the Freeper interest is merely to debunk the assertion that creationism is the same thing as intelligent design and that both are conservative, politically -–or whether the Freeper is interested in engaging a liberal correspondent directly on science issues.
Please post whatever resources you have that may be useful to either objective. Your insights are also very much appreciated.
The second part doesn't follow from the first. People actually doing science, do not agree with this limitation. According to currently accepted physical theory, many processes do occur randomly. Any non-random explanation cannot reproduce the experimental results.
You've been busy.
I think you're off to a good start and have the right idea.
It's "Science, Religion, and Evolution." by Eugenie C. Scott.
Sooo, you are preparing to lance FR's boil...
Messy work.....
Draining that sucker may be in a "needs to done" catagory..
Maybe not..
Marxism and Evolution dance together.. and may be cousins..
and Socialism and Christainity don't mix well.. unless the christianity is apostate.. as most is..
Socialism and Evolution do mix well.. actually they complement each other.. both are on a tear against the concept of human sin.. in different ways..
Socialism = Slavery by Government..
Evolution = Evolving organization of the slaves, socially by psuedo-science..
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
The only basic decision really needed by "political conservatives" is whether they want to embrace ID, or not. They will not be using intelligence or investigation to make that decision. They will be using emotion, which is what all politics runs on. James Carville and Carl Rove probably have a better understanding on what will happen, and how to effect the outcome, than investigating actual scientific evidence.
I'm convinced that if and when political conservatives embrace ID, their days as a political majority are numbered. But what do I know?
The alternative possibility is "conservatives" gain even more power, and destroy science in an anti-evolution, and anti-environmental fit. The result is another dark ages, beginning in about 3 generations. Technological civilization ends. Because it depends on a belief that the natural world can be understood and somewhat "controlled", rather than "God does everything, so why bother with understanding". In the end, my great-great-grandchild herds sheep and dies an early death from an appendicitis.
Thanks for the ping. I followed most of your conversation with AntiGuv on defining the terms of the debate and will watch this one as well.
bump4later
This common claim by ID spokespeople is a tactical pose, IMO. Back when the DI's Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture was still young, they were much more upfront about their beliefs & agenda. Here are some snippets from their "What is Materialism FAQ":Most importantly, Intelligent Design does not specify, identify or personify the designer, the intelligent cause. The designer could be any volitional entity including God, collective consciousness, or aliens.
Significantly, the intelligent cause could be an emergent property from naturalistic causes which is the mainstream materialistic explanation for intelligence.
Materialism is the modern day philosophy that holds that matter is all there is. It's the philosophy that says "If you can't touch it, smell it, taste it or explain it through the hard sciences, it doesn't exist." Men are merely complex machines and not spiritual beings.And it's approved by most intellectuals around the world.
One other thing: we're out to topple it.
[Naturalism is] another word for materialism. There are no discernible differences. Kind of like "soda and pop," " shrimp and prawns." Naturalism states that nature is " all there is."
...
Materialism ... sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ''rules'' that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon.
Indeed, if materialism is right -- as most intellectuals propose -- then ''God'' is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn't create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ''if God is dead then all things are lawful. '' Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.
...
Materialism teaches us that God is dead. It follows that divine revelation cannot be the basis of human law.
Human law can only be based on upon the current opinion of the people who have the power to make and interpret laws. In our society, that power rests in the hands of an elite class of judges, lawmakers and other experts.
...
If morals are relative and nothing is absolute, anything goes. It requires no deep intellectual digging to see how materialism has assaulted popular culture.
...
The Center [for the Renewal of Science and Culture] is the intellectual base for the effort to overthrow materialism. Recruiting leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center promotes the latest scientific research that undercuts materialism. Specifically, the Center awards fellowships for original research, hold conferences and briefs policy and opinion makers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
The ID movement is based on the concept of moral subjectivism: They believe that the real world gives us no objective reason to act morally - indeed no objective reason to judge an act as moral or not! In this sense ID'ers are the postmodernists of the Right.
But unlike traditional (usually leftist) postmodernists, the ID'ers at least wish there was something like an objective standard to look to to decide our moral conflicts. They believe God fills this need. Even if God's idea of right & wrong were totally arbitrary decisions on His part, at least it's a single standard for everyone to live by.
This moral framework comes from neoconservatives, and seems to be what motivated Philip Johnson to mount his attack on Darwin. (Johnson may well have written the 1998 "What is Materialism?" FAQ himself, I don't know.)
Great observations. Bump
FYI, Schroeder has long been one of my favorites. He grabbed my attention when he started his "Genesis and the Big Bang" with him sitting atop a mesa on the Nevada Test site -- with a nuclear device exploding deep beneath him -- and a startled deer... ;-) And I've appreciated his insights ever since!
It may come as a surprise to some, but going for insight on Genesis to one of God's People to whom the Torah was originally given makes perfect sense to this Christian!
Has anyone found any good on-line resources on Wachterhauser's theory for the origin of life? There was a great Larry Gonik cartoon in Discover about fifteen years ago which explained it very well.
Count me in. I just think you have to differentiate the parameters around what counts as intelligent design better. More later, after some winks.
The term "best explained" is an opinion, not a statement of scientific rigor. The whole of ID revolves around this unfounded assertion. The unsubstantiated conclusion that is then called for, the so-called "intelligent cause" is a non-sequitur. It begs the question there was a "cause" that must be "intelligent." The pre-existing "intelligence" is undefined, unknown, and without any qualification or evidence of existence other than the circular reasoning implied in the "best explained." It must be because it must be.
ID is a floating abstraction.
Another side – the official Catholic view - is that Adam was the first ensouled man. It does not dispute evolution theory or the age of the universe and thus, there is no scientific argument against this group. Some of this view self-identify as “theistic evolutionists”.
Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and therefore those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity).
This is really wonderful. God bless you for this. I believe that these last two perspectives are not inconsistent, although you properly separated them. I happen to believe both, so I find myself in the same camp (essentially) as you.
However, this has nicely formulated the issue. I grow weary of the nonsense that those who believe in evolution are essentially anti-God, or anti-Bible. Clearly, what is at issue is the definition of "man." If man is defined strictly and limited to biological organism, then indeed, there is a contradiction. However, if "man" is defined as having a soul, then the "ensoulment" is crucial and evolution and Christianity coexist just fine.
Moreover, the official viewpoint of the Catholic church cannot be casually dismissed by any Christian, Catholic or not (I am not).
I am reminded of Jesus' retort to Pontious Pilate's question about being a King: "My Kingdom is not of this world." Newsflash, Jesus was talking about our souls.
Thank you again for this point.
I find certain aspects particularly interesting and I want to confirm I have understood them properly. Specifically:
Significantly, the intelligent cause could be an emergent property from naturalistic causes which ...
And subsequently:
By showing that the objections are actually mainstream, the hypothesis may be acquitted as politically motivated.
And subsequently:
So for all the objections to Intelligent Design – the mathematicians and physicists are already engaged and working on the very things which are necessary to give a complete picture of origin of species: information (successful communications), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence..... - in the end, the randomness pillar will be pitched
What I find fascinating about these comments is that much of the ID debate may be about semantics. And we should be careful about our terms. We may be arguing about nothing at all. I believe that when the IDers refer to the Intelligent Designer (which is manifestly implicit in their arguments), they are refering to an agent. That is the designer can be a person, an alien, or God. He cannot be collective behavior. That is not a difference in physics or science; it is the difference of what we mean by words.
So, you have defined the intelligent designer as possibly being simply a collective, emergent effect. MOreover, you have emphasized that ID cannot specify who the designer is, otherwise it becomes theology. So, in addtion to emergent effects, we have God (a possibility), aliens, perhaps the Force the unites us and binds us... Whatever.
Now, as a matter of semantics I believe that most IDers would disagree with your terms. This again is a matter of semantics, not science. We just need to agree on definitions. By your definition, I would have much less of a problem with "ID". Actually, I would have no problem with ID if the sole description of the "designer" was these emergent effects. The problem I have is with the notion of an "agent" and I believe that is what most IDers believe.
I don't want to argue the semantics. I do want it clarified for the record though, otherwise we will be talking past each other.
If I follow your train of reasoning, you further argue that science is moving in the direction of complexity theory, emergent behavior, and so forth, therefore, these studies may support the idea of an Intelligent Designer of the emergent behavior type.
I hope I have understood your argument correctly. Now I would like to respond.
Let's first address the semantics issue. I am uncomfortable with the notion that the strengthening studies of complexity, chaos theory, and emergent behavior then suggests that ID might be correct. The reason is that you are generalizing from the specific to the general. You support the thesis (arguably correctly IMHO), that emergent behavior may explain much of evolutionary dynamics. You define ID to include this behavior, and then state that ID, defined broadly is therefore supported.
I disagree with this logic. Only the narrow definition of ID as emergent behavior is supported. Moreover, I would not call emergent behavior ID. But again, we debate semantics not science.
I also disagree with the notion that "randomness will fall." You are correct that much of scientific research is moving away from randomness. However, that is a reflection of current scientific interest, not of the fact that randomness is somehow disappearing from nature. Nature is constant in that respect.
Moreover, some aspects of randomness are not disappearing. Quantum Mechanics for example. Quantum mechanics is random. It is not pseudo-random or chaotic; it is random. Moreover, by the Copenhagen Explanation of Neils Bohr, we also know that the most you can know about a QM system is the wavefunction. The rest is random. This issue has already been debated by the best minds of the last century and I am not going to repeat it here.
The simple fact is that all physical processes are ultimately random, because all ultimately depend on quantum. Again, I refer you to Bohr, Ehrenfest, and the Equivalence Principle. So we know we have random processes.
Now, there are some things that appear random but are not, and these are typically called chaotic systems, which is the successor to complexity theory. Chaos theory is interesting because we have observed that large, complicated systems behaved in similar fashions, even though the underlying dynamics was different. This realization suggested that there were common, collective features that were not immediately apparent from the underlying point dynamics, and also that there were common aspects to complex systems generally.
However, there are some important subtleties to Chaos theory that must be appreciated. 1) First, it was never assumed or imlied that the collective behavior indicated any new dynamics. Moreover, it was never implied or assumed that there was some grand, new, magical force that was causing the collective behavior. It was simply that we fully didn't understand all of the implications of the underlying dynamics. It was our lack of understanding of the implications, nothing more. Moreover, the underlying dynamics were never called into question. 2) Second, we were never fooled by systems that were chaotic but appeared random. We simply observed that chaotic systems did indeed pass all of the mathematical tests for randomness. However, that was a measure of the efficacy of the mathematical tests, not as a question of the basic randomness or non randomness. The classical example is a computer based "random" number generator, typically used for Monte Carlo calculations. We know that the numbers cannot be random because they are generated by a computer. But we also know they pass all of the statistical and spectral tests.
Chaos theory, complexity theory, or emergent behavior studies are just studies of the implications of the underlying dynamics. We do not dispute the underlying dynamics, we are simply learning more about what the implications mean.
Now, if you want to assert that these same sciences could be applied to the evolutionary process, then I would fully agree!!! I believe that there are possibly collective, chaotic, or emergent behaviors comming from the random mutations (due to quantum fluctuations in molecules) and natural selection processes. I certainly would accept that there are collective effects that we do not fully appreciate. But these effects would not vitiate the underlying dynamics. Indeed, it would strengthen the evolutionary argument in that it would indicate that more powerful processes are possible than are typically imagined from the point mode. Indeed, your argument is one of the best that could be made in support of evolution and it undermines ID, except for the way you define ID (semantics again).
Let me close with a specific example from my own field of expertise: plasma physics. The dynamics of plasma physics is relatively simple: electrons and protons are particles that move following classical (Newtonian) mechanics and interact exclusively with the coulomb potential. OK, we are done. Now, once upon a time, Vlasov developed the 2 fluid equations for plasmas. Nice equations based on a simple approximation: integrate over the distribution function and assume quasi-equilibrium and quasi-neutrality. Now, the basic physics indicates that there is no dissipation. If you solve the equations for the electron plasma waves, you get dispersion but no dissipation. So an electron plasma wave goes on indefinitely. This made sense because there was no dissipative or viscous process: just coulomb interactions which conserve energy and momentum. Now, if there were dissipation, the classical process that converts the wave energy to heat, essentially the Joule Thomson effect, dissipates the wave energy by what is known as spectral cascading. The waves numbers split to become more waves, which become more waves, and soon you have a broad, then a flat spectrum. The dispersion of the waves eliminates the coherence and you are left with a white noise spectrum: i.e. heat. The second law of thermodynamics is satisfied perfectly. Now, while the dispersion relation was, well, dispersive, it was not dissipative. So the spectral cascade did not/ does not happen.
Well, along came Lev Landau. And Landau noted that Vlasov had done the Laplace inversion improperly. He did not properly calculate the Cauchy integral. More properly, he did not even do the Cauchy integral. Well, Landau found out that Vlasov had made a mistake. When you do the Laplace inversion properly, the Cauchy integral surrounds a pole in the complex s-plane. That pole corresponds to wave damping. And indeed, Landau discovered Landau-damping, which is what is observed from electron plasma waves. But interestingly, these waves do not dissipate by the spectral cascade. They just damp out and convert to heat. There is no direct, classical explanation. It is a result of collective behavior.
Important point: although Landau damping is a collective behavior, the underlying dynamics: i.e. Newton mechanics and the coulomb interaction remain intact. It is just that their implications are greater than anyone could have predicted.
There was no "Intelligent Designer" for Landau damping. It was simply a collective effect. The underlying dynamics are unchanged.
It would not surprise me if there were a similar effect in evolutionary biology. However, that discovery would strengthen evolution and would further erode ID.
Having said that I must say I feel this is a misguided
endeavor. The only way to defuse the situation you
described in your initial statement is to stop talking
about it. You only add fuel to the flames with this effort.
I would much rather see you start a clearing house for
the Yeti, Nessie, Alien Visits, Time Travel, or ESP.
The results would probably be as beneficial.
My only desire is to keep feelings and folklore separate
from fact. IMHO that ID is a pea-brained attempt to
obscure scientific fact with "I didn't descent from no
monkey" feelings.
I commend you on your effort.
I didn't read your entire article or much of the thread, so the following suggestion may be redundant.
Consider that two of the greatest post-Darwinian scientists of all time, James Clerk Maxwell and Louis Pasteur, both staunchly rejected purely naturalist evolution. Many other great scientists can also be cited. For example, Isaac Newton made unequivical statements against purely naturalistic evolution (yes, the idea existed even way back then).
I also notice that in these discussions the evolutionists main argument usually has nothing to do with any facts other than the "fact" that the "scientific community" categorically rejects ID. In many of their posts, that is their entire argument, and even when it is not their entire argument, it is usually their trump card, which they pull out to "finish off" their poor, pathetic opponent. Well, I think Maxwell, Pasteur, and Newton are some pretty good cards too. We ought to be playing them more.
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Phl 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Luk 11:29-33
29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon [is] here.
32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.
33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth [it] in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
Jhn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
Luk 11:11-13
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.