Free Republic

Don't crucify the messenger, it's just a thought. Interested in your take on it.

Abortion is the anti-christ? Wow you're aiming low.

The real anti-christ is not an individual, it is a movement, and they will be very pleased at your utter lack of foresight in this matter.

The enemy learned something important tonight. We won't shoot first. Don't be so dramatic. Our boys intercepted him early, and you severely over-estimate the threat that a 1700lb C172 with a 130mph top speed represents. Hell, at 14000ft, it would have taken him several minutes just to descend to threaten anything- plenty of time for either of the Falcon Jockeys to pump our a few hundred vulcan cannon rounds if necessary. Considering the political fallout of a civilian-aircraft shoot-down, I think you underestimate the wisdom of the restraint used in this situation.

Not to belie the Authors underlying point too badly, but this quote:

“First of all, socialism, communism and fascism are kissing cousins, intimately related to one another. “

Is painful to read as a history scholar and not even remotely accurate as 31 Million Dead on the WWII European Eastern Front will attest.

Let’s keep our argument to the facts please, they’re on our side. Now is not the time for our side to be producing sound-bytes which can be used to incorrectly paint the entire Conservative Movement as “Ignorant of History.” This quote certainly could qualify.

Modeling observed biological systems does not by default mean that they can arise without an intelligent agent.

Of course not. The assertion in question was whether or not simple information patterns can, when scaled up, correlate to meta-biological processes, that's all. If you notice, I mention that this correlation does not imply causation, nor was I trying to assert that it did.

It says nothing about cause or origin aside from the fact that there is no precedent established that biological systems can form themselves and arise on their own.

Eh... this is actually an interesting point of open debate among myself and my colleagues. I can assure you that the biological mechanisms that we have modeled in the Software Ecosystem were not intentionally placed by any human being, they are instead what could be called the net affect of the intentions and will of all human innovators within the system.

So on one hand, of course, the complex information system arose from "design", in that, it arose from the actions of human beings, but it was not any form of _intentional_ design or engineering, but more an unintentional offshoot of thousands of designers all jockeying to win a finite number of computer cycles for their particular creations.

Which raises an interesting question, if an intelligent agent designs unintentionally, is it still intelligent design?

Information just does not happen. Increasing chemical complexity violates the 2nd law and is not observed to happen spontaneously within nature without a known intelligent agent behind it.

Interesting assertion. On one hand, I can give you countless examples in the computational/simulation world where purely random processes "increase information and complexity", as there as an entire field dedicated to the practice (Evolutionary Algorithmic Computation). Granted, that's still within the artificial "Created" world of binary computation, so I can see why you might dissent to that example. On the other hand you mention that "Increasing chemical complexity" is not observed to happen within nature without an "intelligent agent" behind it, I assume then that you agree that any life-form should be considered an "intelligent agent", as all biology increases chemical complexity of the immediate environment around it during it's life-cycle. Would you say that's a fair assertion or am I missing something? Thanks MetMom!

Thank you for that wonderful quote from a distinguished scientist.

I’ve looked a bit into his research, and I can find no evidence that Professor Williams has any dispute with the larger theory of macro-evolution, nor can I find any statement of his on record that he feels as though his statement here (which is merely asserting, as I have, that the macro-evolutionary theoretical model makes no assertions or predictions about the mechanisms of abiogenesis) has made him the target of any undo criticism or bias by the “Evo-Cult” community as you call them.

It actually sounds like his and my background are quite similar, so if you have evidence that he’s found his impressions on this matter have “stacked the deck against him” in the scientific community, I’d be very interested in seeing it, as it is potentially worrisome for my own professional interests.

I’m sorry you do not see my point about how blurring the lines between cosmology and science can make life difficult for those of who who are actively and intellectually involved in both fields of human thought. I cannot press the point any further than I have, so I respectfully agree that this is an irreconcilable point between us.

Yes, simple patterns do exist and can ‘evolve’, as in vortexes, and other natural phenomena, however, they in no way correleate to extremely complex biological realities-

I'm afraid this assertion is mistaken, as in fact simple patterns in computational security do in fact correlate quite clearly and explicitly with biological models of pathology (virii), and this is currently a field of an incredible amount of research. (Google it, it's interesting stuff;))

Granted, we're only at the level of modeling the simpler biological realities at this point, but that's irrelevant to my point that the correlation does exist, and it is functionally predictive. In fact, my specific field is the development of "antibody" tags in computer systems, that is, a system for detecting and recognizing the telltale markers of pathogenic behavior in computational system utilizing a mechanism directly lifted from biological study of the human immunology. (Please forgive me for not being more specific, details beyond this abstract are highly protected trade secrets).

The point, however, is that I can assure you that indeed, these simple patterns can and do "evolve" into systems which mirror complex biological realities, to the point that the functional predictive potential of biological immunology theory can be made to directly translate to a form of "Computational Immunology Theory." No, of course, this correlation in no way implies causation, I.E. simply because computers model biology in no way implies that biology is based in the same basic, simple logic of computers: but to say no correlation can exist is simply and flatly incorrect.

Who created the metainfo? Is nature capable of doing so? I'm not sure. I can assure you that human beings did not "intentionally" create an immunological nature to software behavior theory, that is something that we have found through observation, not intentional engineering. Who created it. did Nature? Did God? Did We? I don't know, don't claim to, don't even want to. That's cosmology, and beyond the scope of my professional expertise. All I can tell you is that it is there.

Thanks for the prompt response! I'm enjoying this immensely.

Sir,

I am not about to argue with symantics of macro vs. micro evolution, nor am I equipped to discuss every exception to every rule. I will say that your eagerness to stratify objectivists into distinct categories (pro/con macro-evolution) I find to be of questionable intent and utility, but such are merely the egotistical judgements of one Man, and as such, not of any more particular utility;)

As a professional engineer who utilizes objective science (specifically, principles of abstract math and computation, combined with theories about the reproductive effectiveness of particular algorithms (organisms) within particular computational environments), My interest in science and objectivity is entirely and completely functional in nature. I could not care less about the ontological Truth of any given theory, only it’s ability to help me predict, and hence engineer the given domain in which I work.

That said, the biggest problem I have Ever had with ID is simply this- I have yet to find a single situation where an ID theory provides any additional functional predictive benefit above and beyond it’s evolutionary antithesis. To try and clarify- So yes, There are plenty of Scientifically rigorous Intellectual Theories which falsify parts (or all, I don’t claim to know) of macro-evolution by proving the predictions of macro-evolution wrong in specific cases, but is there a single I.D. Theory which, in addition to falsifying some aspect of macro-evolution, also provides verifiable, testable and practical rules of thumb which enable scientists and practical professionals such as my self to better predict, model and affect their world? Could you give me an example of a practical engineering breakthrough brought about by I.D. Theory that would not have been possible with merely macro-evolutionary theoretical modeling?

If there is, then I will admit that perhaps I’ve mis-judged ID.

Let me first take a moment to thank you all for your hospitality and warm welcome, It truly gratifies me to see such a thoughtful, intelligent, and passionate conservative community.

only1percent, You and I are of aligned mind on the subject at hand. I will fully admit that I am perhaps overly sensitive to Creationism and ID in conservative thought, largely because I work in a field (computational security) in which the large-scale principles of evolution (macro-evolution- the self replication of successful patterns of information in a computational environment) is beyond proven- and is in fact a fundamental assumption and staple of my day-to-day professional problem solving. The entire notion of creationism - that the way things are, are because they were made that way, runs as antithesis to my professional requirements day to day, where I must evaluate why things are they way they are, understand the forces which allowed them to be that way, and put in place practices and procedures those organisms which I Shepard ("White-List Software") to prevail over those organisms which would take advantage of them ("Black-List Software").

Before you play "gotcha" on me, yes I understand that the computational environment I work in was quite explicitly "created" by human means. No I take absolutely no stand on the abiogenesis of the computational environment in which I exist or live (Reality, Truth, The Universe, etc), whether it be created or evolved. Those questions are simply not relevant to my professional needs, and I have not the ego to assert my personal cosmology above any other, aside to say that I am very thankful for a very strong personal relationship to a Subjective figure in my life whom I know as Jesus Christ.

But I digress, the remainder is directly directly towards tpanther (with the utmost respect and admiration for your passion for The Conservative Cause, sir)

There’s ... millions of reasons to think science has to somehow remain pure only when it’s godless.

With all due respect, there is only one reason to think that science "remains pure only when it's godless," and that is nothing less than it's fundamental academic definition:

Science is a pattern of recursively built objective observations which allows me, the objective professional, to do my job. The Almighty God is a subjective observation which allows me to find my ultimate place in his universe, and shape my macro-level behavior towards that which is beneficial to my soul and my fellow man.

Cosmology is the intellectual conclusion of existence, Science is a pile of Objective Observations which hint to us what the First Cause Question was. If it is an uncertainty and a question, it is science, if it is a Conclusion, it is cosmology. ID is a conclusion, it is a Cosmology, not a science. They are Antithetical to one another.

Or, at least in order for me to both put food on my table AND live a spiritually fulfilled life, professional intellectuals such as myself NEED them to be antithetical to one another

When you go and make assertions about "Evo-cult" or tell me that I cannot believe both the Objective practice that feeds my family and the Subjective practice that feeds my soul, you put me into a fundamental crisis of faith... which should I do? Let my children starve by not utilizing the objective observations of evolution which let me do my job, or give up on my soul and dedicate my life to continuing to put food on the table for my family? That's a horrid choice to have anyone make, is it not?

The Academic line between Cosmology and Science is the very thing that allows Men like myself to be both successful engineers (predictors of objective reality) and Faithful Children of the Lord. It is what allows us to compartmentalize between what we can observe as true, and what we Know As True.

Why you think I’m concerned about the liberal kool-aid drinkers spreading their endless lies is way beyond me though!

I fully understand that you are not concerned with this liberal cool-aid drinkers' lies, and hence, you see absolutely no problem with feeding them with further ammunition to make me question my beliefs. They tell me that I cannot both feed my family and be accepted by Our Lord. In My Heart, Jesus Tells me this isn't true, but then you agree with them. You eagerly place value judgments on the very beliefs I require to sustain this life. Your lack of concern on this matter leaves you open to be exploited by the Godless to drive His Children Away from Him. Please sir, I beg of you - consider this when you make your assertions in the future.

That is all I have to say, sorry for the rant. Good day and God Bless!

tpanther, your notion that the only people incapable of recognizing the “bias” of peer review are “evo-cultists” is a very dangerous misconception being spread by adherents (both Real and Fake) to Young-Earth Creationism.

This misconception is being eagerly fanned on you-tube and web-2.0 media by “Poes”, leftist liberals who see an inability of mainline Christians to comprehend the difference between cosmology and rational science as a form of Intellectual(as opposed to faith-based) wedge issue.

The General “Poe” line of attack is to craft a postulate which, on the surface, sound reasonable to people conservative, mainline Christian cosmology, but which contain built-in, fundamental logical fallacies which are immediately obvious to individuals educated in a particular intellectual discipline. The Poe then broadcasts his postulate among the faithful, who, eager to read “Scientific evidence that supports their faith”, quickly latch on to it, praise it, and often claim it as their own material.

This is where the real subterfuge begins. The Poe then circulates the related postulate, and the eager faithful support of it, among those of the intellectual discipline for which is particular postulate was crafted to appeal, for it is these people who are his real intended audience.

The result is predictable- The Poes Educated audience (of undetermined faith and cosmological background) are lead to the conclusion that people of faith, and specifically, all people of Christian Religious Faith are “obviously” of diminished intellectual capacity due to their inability to see the “obvious” flaw. Usually, the Poe’s responsibility for creating the postulate, and the flaw itself, is conveniently “forgotten” in this follow-up discussion.

From a scientific and academic perspective, the comparisons drawn between Intelligent Design and Alchemy, Geocentricism, and even Astrology are absolutely apt, and the only people who do not understand this are those who have never been taught to comprehend the difference between Scientific Rationalism and Spiritual Cosmology.

Should young earth creationism be taught in school? ABSOLUTELY! Teach it in an introduction to philosophy/cosmology course. Teach it for what it is - a notion of how human beings fit in and relate to God and His Universe. That’s great, it’s honest and it’s fair.

The Hostility towards Young-Earth Creationism by Scientific journals has nothing to do with Truth or Cosmology, and everything to do with the fact that it is simply not a rational science. Until our children are taught to explicitly comprehend the difference, their, and your, confusion on the matter will be used by intellectually dishonest wolves to cast a mere lack of education as a fundamental fallacy in flaw in all you believe in and hold dear. The very terms “Evilution” and “evo-cultists” are meant as emotional bait, and all to often, the Traps are very real.

Even if you, personally, cannot comprehend them.

Forget Albatross, Young Earth Creationism is straight-up the noose being used to string-up political conservatism to the entire (<30) web-generation. Crap guilt-by-association or no, if political conservatives do not rally together to disassociate themselves from these nuts soon (ideally before the next election), there is going to exist an entire generation in this country who associates ANY Republican, no matter how noble, with Young-Earth Creationist Anti-Rationalism.