The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism

First Things ^ | Phillip E. Johnson

[week 71]

I assume you mean sesquipedalian? I admit to finding a certain amount of precision helpful. Perhaps you could point out which words in my post you found overlong?

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Maybe I should have said pedantic or cerebral. Then again it is probably just the fact that I am ignorant of that vernacular (computer programming) while way more fluent with terms of biochemistry and organic chemistry. Have a Merry Christmas, and if you are not prone to celebrate Christmas, Happy holidays.

[AnnaZ]

Yes, even a lawyer can explain why evolution is wrong, that is why we know that any thinking person can refute the lies of an evolutionist.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Oh, Race, that was fabulous!

[edsheppa]

I think we're talking past each other. Here's what I'm saying. Suppose you're given the functions + and X (input variable) and 1 (constant). By composition you can approximate as closely as you like any C-inf function. IMO that's a pretty wide range of outputs and it's possible to build any one simple-step-by-simple-step from a trival case, e.g starting with 1. Koza's technique works like this. Each step adds information so the output never has more than is input and yet the space available is vast and there's an incredible variety of possible behaviors.

Now, take your example of the human brain. It along with the rest of our anatomy is determined by our genes. I don't see any reason there couldn't be a sequence of small changes that take a gemone incapable of developing a brain to one that does. Each step adds information so again there's no greater information in the output than is input. And yet I take it you consider the development of the brain a case of macroevolution.

[RaceBannon]

It slays me. If a theologian can think up evolution (DARWIN) why can't a THEOLOGIAN refute it?? (Any Thinking Christian)

[edsheppa]

I hope you have a Merry Christmas too!

[edsheppa]

Of course there's no reason at all. It's just that they'll need to do it in the proper forum. Writing articles in First Things isn't going to cut it.

[Hajman]

Now, take your example of the human brain. It along with the rest of our anatomy is determined by our genes. I don't see any reason there couldn't be a sequence of small changes that take a gemone incapable of developing a brain to one that does. Each step adds information so again there's no greater information in the output than is input. And yet I take it you consider the development of the brain a case of macroevolution.

Compare it with a bacteria, and it is. Somewhere down the line the function shifted from output <= input to output > input. If you want to convince me, explain to me the conversion function, or explain to me the function that would allow such to happen. I'll look at Koza's technique, however, I have yet to see an algorithm that can shift from output <= input to output > input without an external function (or built in. But everything I've seen for evolutionary algorithms are tightly bound to the first, and doesn't allow the second, due to information limits inate within the evolutionary algorithm). Also, no amount of iterations on an output <= input function can produce an output > input result (that can be demonstrated several ways. The easiest is if A<=B then A*c<=B*c (or c(A<=B)=true for iteration synatx of summation(Ac<=Bc,c,1,inf)). This is essentially Micro Evolution. Small changes that alter existing structures/information, and give no true new structures/information. I don't put much trust on Macro Evolution because it'd need a conversion to move from A<=B to A>B. That's why I ask for a function to shift from Micro to Macro, and that's why I don't believe iterations of Micro can shift to Macro.

-The Hajman-

[Torie]

Hi Ed! Long time no see. Merry Christmas.

Lewontin was a professor of mine way back when, when we were both young and fancy free. The class got as a final paper assignment to write a critique of an Arthur Jensen paper on race and IQ. Naturally, given Lewontin's reputation, I felt it my sworn duty to defend it. I love uphill battles. I got a B+ as I recall.

[Hajman]

Just checked Koza's technique for GA computation. It's much the same as other GAs I've seen, and it's within the same boundries (see the Framsticks program I linked you two a reply or two ago). Micro Evolution at it's finest. But only Micro Evolution (the GA algorithms don't cross into Macro Evolution boundries).

-The Hajman-

[WRhine]

It is just that Darwinism is a "religion", and it is exceptionally difficult to argue someone out of a religious stance; oh they will say it is based on science and all that foolishness but it has reached religious fervor among followers. Have a Merry Christmas.

Would not an "honest" person say: It is just that Creationism is a "religion", and it is exceptionally difficult to argue someone out of a religious stance; oh they will say it is based on the bible and with all the inaccuracies the good book contains but it has reached religious fervor among followers.

That is the real story. I find it interesting that Creationists lately have been adopting Bill Clinton type tactics of intentionally labeling Evolutionists (those who have the facts on their side) for the very traits and faults that are SOLEY intrinsic to the Creationist. I guess since the facts and proven science don't help your Middle Ages Creationist cause the next logical step is to repeat falsehoods of which only Creationists are guilty of in the hopes that if you say it enough some people might believe you. Oh and Have a Merry Christmas.

[edsheppa]

Somewhere down the line the function shifted from output <= input to output > input.

Again, I just don't see this. To be specific, I don't see anything in the biological world that's not the output of some conceivable sequence of input given the kind of "primitive" life we have good reason to think existed about 4B years ago. In the last post I addressed your example of the brain. Did you find some deficiency in my explanation?

Also, no amount of iterations on an output <= input function can produce an output > input result

And again, each step in the process adds some small bit of information so the output isn't greater than the input.

[edsheppa]

Merry Christmas to you too!

[Hajman]

Again, I just don't see this. To be specific, I don't see anything in the biological world that's not the output of some conceivable sequence of input given the kind of "primitive" life we have good reason to think existed about 4B years ago. In the last post I addressed your example of the brain. Did you find some deficiency in my explanation?

The information you gave describes Micro Evolution well. But not Macro Evolution. You keep repeating yourself. I've tried to explain why in conceptual terms. If there's something you don't understand specifically, just ask.

And again, each step in the process adds some small bit of information so the output isn't greater than the input.

Correct. However, if you end up with an output greater then the input (such as the brain to the bacteria), then somewhere down the line the function shifted from A<=B to A>B. Remembering that if the function gives A<=B, then A*c will give c(A<=B) = true. In other words, an infinite number of c iterations won't shift the function from A<=B to A>B, without an external conversion (unless the function isn't truly an A<=B function, but I've seen no observable evidence for that). This is a basic mathematical premise.

-The Hajman-

[week 71]

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

[jennyp]

It would be quite possible for a deity to manipulate the states of these particles without such manipulations being detectable in any way, within certain limits ... Given that even such microscopic changes could, if well-selected, have macroscopic effects, it would seem they would provide at least one means by which a diety could affect things in the universe while remaining undetectable.

That's evolutionist Kenneth Miller's belief, BTW.

[jennyp]

Ah, so it was correct for previous generations of scientists to use the naturalistic assumption, but today we shouldn't?

They might have used naturalistic assumption, but not materialistic assumption. There is a difference.

FYI, that's not the "official" view of the ID hierarchy...

#2. What is Naturalism?

It's another word for materialism. There are no discernible differences. Kind of like "soda and pop," or "shrimp and prawns." Naturalism states that nature is "all there is."

[edsheppa]

The information you gave describes Micro Evolution well. But not Macro Evolution.

Wait a minute. You say here the process I described is an example of microev. But that process was one where you start with a "primitive" genome and end up with one that expresses a brain. And this is the example you claimed was an instance of macroev according to your meaning. That seems contradictory. What gives?

Correct. However, if you end up with an output greater then the input...

I'll attempt to not repeat myself again but just say this: I don't see any case where the output is necessarily greater than the input. Specifically, assuming that the genome is essentially determinative and that a sequence of natural (and usually small) changes can take long ago genomes to today's then the output has no more information than the input (i.e. initial condition plus changes). I agree that if a contrary case could be shown then it would require a new approach.