The ‘Darwinist Inquisition’ Starts Another Round

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=169

[shuckmaster]

You're thinking which good but, still a little confused.

[shuckmaster]

If physicists behaved the way evolutionists did, I would claim it was a religion.

You use the term religion as if it's a negative. What have you got against religion?

[MHalblaub]

I like chess. But what is Dembski trying to say?
(http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Defense_of_ID.pdf)
excerpt:
"It follows that the charge of supernaturalism against intelligent design cannot be sustained. Indeed, to say that rejecting naturalism entails accepting supernaturalism holds only if nature is defined as a closed system of material entities ruled by unbroken laws of material interaction. But this definition of nature begs the question. Nature is what nature is and not what we define it to be. To see this, consider the following riddle: How many legs does a dog have if one calls a tail a leg? The correct answer is four. Calling one thing another thing doesn’t make it something else."

Good example for someone with no idea what science is about. First you have to set up a definition about what is a 'leg'.

Try a: Part of a body able to move the body.
Dog on a skate board pushing him forward with his tail.
5 legs.
Try b: Part of a body able to move and sustain the body.
4 legs.

So it depends on your definitions what results you'll get. Calling something something is not science.

Question: How obtains a mathematician sheep to get on the inside of a corral?

Back to the game. Was the game chess or science? Well Dembskis comparison is faulty. He tries to compares the game of chess with nature and the rules with science. But science is not the ruler, science is a spectator. Dembski ask how to come from the initial position of chess pieces to the position Dembski gives on page 11.

Assumed a spectator figured out the standard chess 'rules' out. He would be surprised to find the constellation on page 11. But how a spectator figured out the rules of chess? By observing every single move. So the first question would be what was the position before that situation and the next how will the game go on when you come to a board with that constellation? What does we have no? A new move and therefore something were not able to describe correct at the moment. Something strange like castling. Well, that constellation you may achieve by some moves but castling happens in one move. Do you need ODIN for castling?

I want to finish with a cite of Dembski:
"Nature is what nature is and not what we define it to be."
So please don't define it as complex.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You confuse the attitude of Galileo and Newton toward religion with those of someone like Gould..."

You are missing my point. I wasn't talking about Galileo and Newton's attitude towards religion (Galileo was a Catholic and Newton was a Unitarian); I was talking about their attitudes toward what was acceptable evidence in a scientific theory. Neither used supernatural causes as evidence. What I said was correct.

[Rudder]

I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.

The jerk says he's not a scientist, then he proves it by falsifying the premise of science.

[Pietro]

"ID is going down. It's only a matter of time."

Actually, I think the idea of ID is gaining strength if FR is any indication.

There are daily posts (often more than one) on this subject which clearly demonstrates that ID is being discussed in the general public. Furthermore,the more they think about it the more ID begins to resonate in the general population.

I realize it is a fetish among "scientists" to consider the general population a collection of ignoramouses, however, that would be their fatal mistake.

[MHalblaub]

"You can't possibly hope to compare the delicate, interwoven complexity of the finest machine in existence to a bunch of atoms lined up in a row because they are cold. It doesn't pass the smell test, but if you want, go to the following link for a complete argument. Go to page 18. "

Is the thesis of IC limited to living objects? Someone have tried to argue with a mouse trap.

Irreducible Complexity Revisited http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf by William a Dembski.

page 19f:
"But a Roman arch is simplifiable—a single, solid piece of rock can be made into the same shape as the arch, thereby performing the same function as the arch and doing so in essentially the same manner."
With that argument you can kick your so beloved flagellum as well. Exchange some atoms and it still will work. Sure you want some proof how to do that. I must admit I don't know how to construct a flagellum with other atoms but can you proof that is impossible?
By the way, an single, solid piece of rock is much more inflexible and unhandy as some smaller stones.

"Thus, for the Darwinian mechanism to produce an irreducibly complex system by means of a scaffold, the system plus scaffold must have served a different function up until all the core components of the final irreducibly complex system became available, snapped into place, and formed a functional system."
My problem with this argumentation is the part with "must have served a different function". Why, because the selective pressure is so big? This is an error in the comprehension of how selection works. It depends on the environment how big the pressure is and how many 'useless' things may survive. With low pressure you got scaffolds, with high pressure maybe a son a extincted species. Therefore very specialized species are likelier to extinct then environment changes.

Dembski lack to show that it is impossible to achieve an irreducibly complex by small steps. He himself showed that a scaffold works but denies that function to biological systems.

[drhogan]

so, if the Plan is not strictly determinist, He could have put in some random components if He wanted to. Such as random mutations.

[ml1954]

The question is whether these phenomenon are beyond the current methods of science.

This cannot be known.

The growth I mentioned isn't the growth of knowledge, but of methodology.

Once again you are trying to change the definition of science.

Even though backed into a corner,

LOL

We're no longer dealing with the analogy of the chess board, but the definitions of the terms we are using and their logical implications.

Sorry, but when someone starts trying to change the definition of words to support their position, words that have hard solid meanings and that are time tested, I bow out.

[Louis Foxwell]

so, if the Plan is not strictly determinist, He could have put in some random components if He wanted to. Such as random mutations.

Anything is possible. The problem with the random model is that it does not work with statistical science. It is not plausible. It is also a dead end assumption, a bias rather than a principle supported by evidence.

Design is a model that jumps up in front of even the most casual observer. Investigating for evidence of purposeful change rather than random mutation could yield some exciting results.

[Louis Foxwell]

Prof: So you're OK with the statement 'Christians are serial killers'? Amos: Absolutely. Prof: I admire your honesty, but please turn yourself in. Amos: After you, my friend.

[RightInEastLansing]

"If you're under the impression there is a significant entropy difference between a live body and a dead body, or for that matter between a live body and a similar mass of water, please disabuse yourself."

No, but I am under the impression that you can show no examples of extreme complexity arising without intelligent input. I promise to "disabuse" myself when you come up with an appropriate example. And please spare me the juvenile example of a star. Or examples involving living processes. I fully understand that living things can significantly reverse entropy.

[atlaw]

Say, hypothetically, that some "supernatural" force causes giant talking stalks of broccoli to get up and start mowing your lawn for free. Is it your view that science would be inherently incapable of taking note of that event?

Well, first thing I'd do is open up the "giant talking stalk of broccoli" to make sure the "supernatural" force inside isn't my brother-in-law.

If it's just a stalk of broccoli, I'd ask it why it's doing my lawn for free. (Better be a good answer too. The last thing we need are a bunch of communist broccoli stalks undermining free enterprise.)

To put the question more seriously, as long as something has an observable effect on the real world, what's to prevent it from being reachable through scientific investigation?

Nothing. But, unlike your example above, where you start with the assumption that the broccoli stalk is necessarily animated by "some supernatural force" before investigating the more mundane physical probabilities, science doesn't start its investigation with an assumption that there is no explanation other than the supernaturally inexplicable. If it did, not much would get explained, would it?

[RightInEastLansing]

"Photosynthesis"

Yes, once again this is a living organism effecting a change in entropy. I specifically asked for examples devoid of l
living mechanisms.

How long did it take for you to come up with that one. Why not simply use your response as an example of reverse entropy?
Or do you consider yourself inanimate?

[RightInEastLansing]

"Of course. When a creationist can't refute a point, he simply introduces a logical fallacy. In this case, you simply change the subject."

I am not a creationist. I am just an interested observer. Some I.D. claims seem reasonable to me and many others. I find the smug arrogance of the anti-I.D. crowd entirely unappealing.

[atlaw]

So your ultimate point is that ID seeks only to explain abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with subsequent evolution?

[Right Wing Professor]

You used the term entropy, a thermodynamic term with a specific definition, to describe some goofy idea about complexity.

I fully understand that living things can significantly reverse entropy.

You understand that, do you? Well, it's wrong. Living things obey the same second law and other thermodynamic laws everything else does. Entropy increases in any spontaneous process. There are no exceptions.

Define complexity for me, and I'll show you how it can arise.

[RightInEastLansing]

"Yes, and the sun has created the fuel for you to run your Lexus and the energy to melt the ore for your Lexus and finally another sun bred the iron atoms for your Lexus."

The fuel was generated by living material. And yes, I understand that physical material and physical properties exist. The trick is to assemble this material into a complex organism by a purely natural process.

Even with our intelligent input we can't create living organisms from inanimate material. So what makes you so confident that a random universe forever becoming more random has the ability to do such a task?"

[Louis Foxwell]

Uncaused events are happening all around you, every minute of every day. Every time a radioisotopic atom decays, it does so spontaneously, uncaused and unbidden. What's one more uncaused event, among a nearly infinite number of such occurrences daily?

That is not a legitimate uncaused event. All that can be said is that the cause is unknown. There is probably nothing in the known universe that is in the final analysis uncaused. Every atom was caused.

We do not experience first causes. Science, however, has posited a first cause ( the Big Bang) as a means of extricating itself from the dilemma of irreducability.

Once accepted, the dynamics of this first cause become paramount. Could the Big Bang have produced any of an infinite variety of universes? Not according to any serious astrophysicist.

How, then, do we understand the cause of those principles? Are they inherent? In what?

Science is about more than observation. It is also about unraveling raw data to get at the underlying principles that steer data in a given direction. This is the essential problem with evolutionists who refuse to acknowledge any possibility of intentional design.

Evolution is a perfectly good way of understanding change. The nature of the change is not, however, either predetermined or out-of-bounds. Evolution scientists who want us to swallow whole the notion that change is a spontaneous eruption must also believe that fire produces salamanders.

BTW Enuf with the guff about random chance. There are times when a double entendre is intentional and intentionality is what this scrum is all about.

[atlaw]

Every atom was caused.

Was every atom intelligently designed?