The Bathroom Wall

Hey troll.

You're up to your old tricks again.

What I am trying to get at is: how close to the sequence you quote does a gene have to be to produce a protein that will express the function expressed by that gene as given?

Tell us troll: where does a cell keep a directory which tells humans what a particular gene's "function" is? Or "functions" (if I may be so bold as to imagine such an outrageous and utterly fantastical possibility without blowing your skull apart)?

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black, Why you never see bright colors on my back, And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone. Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on. I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town, I wear it for the prisoner who has not committed any crime, But is there because he's a victim of the times. I wear the black for those who never read, Or listened to the words that Ghandi said, About the road to happiness through peace and empathy, Why, you'd think he's talking straight to you and me. Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose, In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes, But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back, Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black. I wear it for the sick and lonely old, For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold, I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been, Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. And, I wear it for the thousands who have died, Believing that the Lord was on their side, I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died, Believing that we all were on their side. Well, there's things that never will be right I know, And things need changin' everywhere you go, But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right, You'll never see me wear a suit of white. Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day, And tell the world that everything's OK, But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back, 'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black Johnny Cash

After someone mentioned that a comment had been moved to the previous Bathroom Wall I went looking for it, but I couldn't find it.  It was buried too deep in the archives to come up easily.

How about a permanent front-page link to it, as long as it's always going to be receiving new stuff?

Specified complexity is a somewhat meaningless term to attach a probability to our ignorance. In other words it is not based on a positive observation but merely describes what we do not know. But things get worse, information and specified information can arise quite easily under the processes of selection and variation as has been shown many times in various papers (Adami, Schneider, Lenski et al). The problem is that concepts of information and complexity are used in a meaningless manner. On the one hand we have claims by ID proponents of information and on the other hand of specified complexity without much of an attempt to link the two. Information in the more commonly used sense of Shannon information can be shown to easily arise, the problem is that when the probabilites increase CSI has by definition to decrease so in other words, natural processes by definition cannot generate CSI. But on the other hand CSI is often confused with information which CAN be generated by natural processes. And through the process of equivocation and invocations of handwaving, the creationist argument is made.
So any claims that confuse the terms of information (regulatory information) and specified complexity are based on poorly defined terms, equivocation. Once these terms are placed within the correct context it is easy to show that CSI is a meaningless concept to replace our ignorance and that such concepts as law of conservation of CSI or design inferences are based on flawed premises, faulty theoretical foundations. No wonder that these concepts have failed to provide any foundations for scientific hypotheses and have failed to be scientifically relevant. So let's, in name of the search for truth, reject the attempts to confuse information and CSI/specified complexity and focus on the real arguments which are: Can the increase in information in the genome be explained by natural processes. And the answer is at least in principle yes. So lets do the hard work and focus on real scientific hypotheses. And no, Intelligent Design, contrary to claims by some of its proponents is not really scientific.

The Bathroom wall has a perminate link on the front page.
Right side of the page.
There are a number of boxes
The first is Description

Then second is Information
in that box the 5th item from the top is
The Bathroom Wall

To find previous "The Bathroom Wall"s simply drill throuth them from the first post in each "The Bathroom Wall" by clicking on the link provided.

Creationists suck.

That protein I mentioned is a yeast SNARE called SSO1. Typical protein. You have several mutants of it in yourself, actually. You could change about 220 of the 290 amino acids and get a functionally equivalent protein.

Traffic demons suck.

This phenomenon of communal ignorance and communal chutzpah is simply stunning. Maybe if the ID advocates could be persuaded to read the original materials for comprehension rather than quote-mining opportunities, there would be less confusion. It's a radical proposal, I know.

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Wesley: Oh, I get it. The citation you gave wasn't actually the relevant citation - I had to use it as the starting point to research what the actual point at stake was supposed to be. Sorry, I am stupid after all - expecting the citation given to be directly relevant to what you are talking about.

— aCTa

There are several issues that this text brings up. Of the three steps listed as comprising Dawkins' algorithm, only step (1) has anything like it in the pages of "The Blind Watchmaker". Steps (2) and (3) appear to be inventions rather than descriptions. What is the basis for claiming that steps (2) and (3) represent Dawkins' "weasel" algorithm?

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Even what you have written is so cryptic that I can't tell whether the italicised section is what you said or what Dembski said.

— aCTa

The point of disparity that taints Dembski's version of "weasel" (both his steps 2 and 3) I mentioned in that thread: There is rather a large conceptual difference between treating "correct" letters as immune to mutation and treating all letters as qually likely to mutate. I continue to see this as a problem.

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Now let me see ... Are you grumbling about what Dembski called a step? Well, supposing he had got the description of Dawkins' model correct.

— aCTa

Would that have changed the thrust of his argument? Frankly, I doubt it - because at the end of the day, there is no correspondence between either Dawkins' model or Dembski's interpretation of it and peptides in a protein. Dembski agrees that Dawkins' model converges on a string - but whether he has described that model correctly or not, the fact is that it only converges on the string because the string has been specified in advance. The metaphor Dawkins is using is rubbish - because in key details (target being specified) it doesn't correspond to real life.

— aCTa

And you are quibbling about Dembski not having got the definition of the step right? If that's the level of argument you are marshalling against the other arguments, then I'm not sure I can even be bothered to look them up - this supposed defence isn't science, it's semantics.

— aCTa

Specified complexity does not describe what we do not know. In fact, my understanding is that it is completely the opposite. The amount of information in a system can be measured - that is the amount of information required to specify this system and not a different one.

— aCTa

The existence of a minimal program/input pair that results in a certain output indicates that there exists an effective method for production of the output. Since effective methods are something that are in common between intelligent agents and instances of natural computation, one cannot distinguish which of the two sorts of causation might have resulted in the output, but one can reject chance causation for the output. We haven't so much repaired specification as we have pointed out a better alternative to it. This leads me to a claim about Dembski's design inference: Everything which is supposedly explained by a design inference is better and more simply explained by Specified Anti-Information. SAI identifies an effective method for the production of the output of interest. The result of a design inference is less specific, being simply the negation of currently known (and considered) regularity and chance. The further arguments Dembski gives to go from a design inference to intelligent agency are flawed. On both practical and theoretical grounds, SAI is a superior methodology to that of the design inference.

For a good time trashing misguided creationist apologetics on the philosophy of science argument, call 555-Get-A-Grip. Or visit this Blog.

Wesley - it's amazing how many non-biologists reproduce Dawkins' argument as though it is the mechanism for evolution, having failed to observe the caveats that he so clearly enumerated.

aCTa, by the way, still has jack concerning his claim about "many" biologists using "weasel" as a proof of biological evolution without caveat.

It's amazing how many ID advocates are unaware that Richard Dawkins very clearly and forthrightly enumerated the reasons why the "weasel" program was not a complete or exact simulation of biological evolution.

Hmmm. Giving that I'll be undergoing major surgery within a week, ...

— Wesley Esberry

And aCTa has yet to provide even a single citation to support his counter-claim that "many" biologists use the "weasel" program as a proof of biological evolution without caveat.

Oddly enough with regard to the correspondence between language and genes - it wasn't the creationists that started it - it was Dawkins, with METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL

— A Creationist Troll, apparently

Bother. My last reply disappeared into cyberspace. I don't have time to reconstruct it.

Wesley: I hope the surgery goes well, if you are still reading and we don't cross words before. I don't suppose you want me to pray for you, but all the best anyway.

Bother. It didn't. Aaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhh! Where's the delete key?

aCTa,

By golly, you are correct about your claim; you did say "non-biologists". I apologize for my mistake and any ensuing confusion.

No, I had no rhetorical excess in mind when pointing out the widespread bad behavior of antievolutionists with respect to their treatment of Dawkins with respect to "weasel". I was and am fully prepared to back it up, as you have experienced. But I will take it that you are retracting your counter-claim, as you say it was meant as a mere rhetorical flourish. And I certainly can appreciate a good deal of the repertoire of "Monty Python" as a basis for allusion. I don't recall them doing anything in particular about Hersham, though.

And by all means do feel free to include me in your prayers if you feel so moved. Apparently, you don't yet know much about me.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html

Now, you have said, "typical protein". In what regard? Its size? The fact that only 25% of its peptides are relevant to its function? Could you change any 220 peptides of the 290? If there are 70 specific sites that are relevant, then in effect rather than a (ballpark) 29020(1049) range of polypeptide space to find this peptide in, you have a 7020 (1036) space. Plus an order of magnitude or two I suppose for the fact that the size of the protein is presumably relevant. A big improvement - a probability 13 orders of magnitude bigger. Though still pretty unlikely to crop up at random - a lot less likely than the 1011 for any functionality quoted above. (!!! I do hope I got those brackets right!) I suppose it is possible for some of those 70 "active" amino acids to substitute for amino acids with a similar nature - hydrophobic, or whatever? Again, that might help raise the probability.

Actually, get a Chemistry textbook first, then the Molecular Biology ones. Maybe then a book about evolution, such as What Evolution Is, by Mayr.

OK, I'll disappear - turn into stone, or whatever trolls are supposed to do - and you can forget I ever intruded into your lifestyle. However, before I go, I would just like to make a couple of points.

1. For all its supposed explanatory power, evolution doesn't have a mechanism - at least not one more specific than "mutation and natural selection". It has been conceded that a random peptide sequence won't be a protein of specific functionality - it is unlikely to produce one with any functionality. No assessment has been made of the timescales or likelihood for a series of mutations to generate a completely new gene. The best that can be offered is organisms reusing existing genes in new ways - which doesn't address how the genes came about in the first place. So despite the insistence that evolution is so powerful, nothing seems to be known about how it actually works - which at the end of the day, isn't that different from invoking a God. Except that nobody is held to account by evolution, which is jolly convenient. And also leads to breakdown of society, but there you go.

2. At the end of the day, evolution for many people simply becomes a convenient place to hang their "anti-God" hat, when their real issue is that they don't want to believe in God. So science has assumed "uniformity of natural causes in a closed system" (post-enlightenment - pre-enlightenment both humans and God were outside the system - don't forget that if evolution is true then regardless of what Dawkins says about the rainbow, we have no ultimate significance); the rest of the world assumes that science has proved this assumption. The real issue of whether there is a God has not been addressed.

3. In terms of books on evolution, I bought "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Gould. The funny thing is that I couldn't find anything about mechanisms at all in it - not with mathematical detail about probabilities, genes, mutations etc - and what I was really reading it for was to find out about mechanisms, because I would really like to try and write a computer model that was more convincing than the analogues of METHINKS that Wesley gets so hot under the collar about .... It's silence in supposedly "definitive" books like this - and to be blunt, on this forum as well - that goes furthest towards convincing me that the emperor has no clothes.

The real issue of whether there is a God has not been addressed.

This, of course, isn't an issue at all. The "god hypothesis" is neither stronger nor weaker than the "Great Green Arkleseizure" hypothesis, and True Believers in the Arlkeseizure are probably as frustrated as you are that the "real issue" isn't being addressed. So far, compelling explanations of observable data require no supernatural components. Probably never will. And of course, if they ever do, they are no longer science.

It's (sic) silence in supposedly "definitive" books like this - and to be blunt, on this forum as well - that goes furthest towards convincing me that the emperor has no clothes.

So far, you have shown no clue I've found that you didn't START with that conviction. And the nice thing about starting with convictions is that you can't be wrong -- either valid investigation ratifies your convictions, or it's not valid to start with. But as you leave, you may consider attending the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you will find "real science" meeting your requirements completely. Let us pray.

Oops, misread the syntax. "It's" is correct.

To Wesley Elsberry,

Just saw you are having "major surgery". All the best, man. Good luck, and best wishes to you and your loved ones.

Chris

The real issue of whether there is a God has not been addressed. This, of course, isn't an issue at all. The "god hypothesis" is neither stronger nor weaker than the "Great Green Arkleseizure" hypothesis, and True Believers in the Arlkeseizure are probably as frustrated as you are that the "real issue" isn't being addressed. So far, compelling explanations of observable data require no supernatural components. Probably never will. And of course, if they ever do, they are no longer science.

aCTa, for a couple of computer models of evolution have a gander at Tierra or avida

ooops, stupid of me not to notice that I had to use Kwickcode Formatting...

Here are the links again

avida and

tierra

This just in: astronomy shown to be a fraud perpetuated on an unthinking public by secular humanist scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/05/space.star.reut/index.html

Faded star defies description

Astronomers have no idea what EF Eridanus is now

"Now the donor star has reached a dead end -- it is far too massive to be considered a super-planet, its composition does not match known brown dwarfs, and it is far too low in mass to be a star," Howell said. "There's no true category for an object in such limbo."

With the new Tangled bank I have read Charlie Wagners article read it here and have a few comments.

Given Charlie's definition of "Complex machines" would not the earth, and for that matter other levels of cosmology, fall under this definition. There are many self organising systems on the earth that support an overall function of the earth. Those function might have varing degrees of importants but they all work .

Yet we can model the development of the earth and make very accurate predicitons. Yet I don't know if, up to this point, Charlie has claimed that the earth was "designed"

Both comsological object and living organisms can have multiple functions removed without said object not being able to exsist. If all life lost the ability of site would all life stop exsisting? Nope. Neither would the removal of the moon from the system cause the earth to be not a viable possibility.

I won't go into the same thing we rehash all the time where Charlie's alians, who are natural but, some how are immune to the need of the very processes he says are not possible for life to occur.

I'll just say once agian Charlie, just because you can't comprehend it and you don't want to accept the data doesn't mean that it isn't there.

In fact I just thought of something .... Charlie's "Non Complexe Machines "could be viewed just like individual parts to a whole machine. "a waterfall, a mountain, the Grand Canyon, a tornado and an ice crystal"

These items could be viewed as parts of a larger machine who's function is percipitation and errosion.

While each part on its own has some functions there are other functions when you look at it on another level and these system start interacting.

My personal weblog is now available for your edification at:

enigma.charliewagner.com

I would appreciate it very much if people would come and look at it.

Thanks, Charlie

Bill Dembski the Isaac Newton of Information Theory? Not Quite. But this guy might have been the Bill Dembski of Immunology.

The memory of water
The life and work of Jacques Benveniste taught us valuable lessons about how to deal with fringe science, says Philip Ball.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-19.html

Steve

Ah yes, one of my favorite episodes of pseudoscience debunking.

It was a controversial call by Maddox, as I recall, to publish the Benveniste results.

After the ID apologists desperately fabricate some "relevant" results of their own, it would be wonderful to watch them endure a similar defoliation. Perhaps their work could be published in the April 1st issue.

There's no way to put God to the test, and that's exactly what you're doing when you design a study to see if God answers your prayers. This whole exercise cheapens religion, and promotes an infantile theology that God is out there ready to miraculously defy the laws of nature in answer to a prayer.

Proving God Existed, or
What I Learned When I Tried To Get Confused For the Anti-Christ
by Yehoshua Shimon ben-David

I figure archaeology is really the only way to discredit the notion of God, or any classic, tribal Sentient, Cosmic Actor Theory (S.C.A.T.).

This summer I was volunteering on an archaeological dig. A pre-pottery neolithic[1] site (seven to eight thousand years ago), where I met quite a few archaeology students, and not a few fervent, religious people.

Now, throughout history, some Atheists and Scientists have tried to prove their is no God. Going about this in a logical way makes sense to Atheists, some Agnostics and Scientists, except that a God-follower can easily counter with "God is beyond logic," or something equally inane. God-followers try to prove the existence of God, and fail.

What if, instead, we try to prove something tangential to the existence-or-not of a supreme being, and puncture religion's roots?

Now, it is a fact that the Christians and Muslims worship the god of the Jews. The roots of Judaism are shrouded in mystery. As far as external corroboration goes, the earliest references to the existence of Judaism, to the best of my knowledge, are Persian documents from around the 5th century BC.[2]

The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, containing thousands of documents, only a handful of which were made public before 1991, are the current best, known stepping stone to the Truth. They predate any previously known copy of the Tanakh(Old Testament)[3] by about a thousand years, and pre-date any apparent sense of the Canon.

God is a word, which is translated. Some nutcases say "angel," for example, should be translated as "People from the Rocketships." It's absurd, of course, but it makes you think, "How did we choose to translate non-reality based words?"

Semitic languages all share the word, in Akkadian it is Ellu, in Arabic it is Allah, in Hebrew it is El.

Note: Names of God in the Tanakh (Old Testament) are: Yahweh, Elohim, El, Eloah, Elah

But what did this word mean, a long, long time ago? Anything more than "great one" or something akin to "top dog?"

A student getting his Master's degree in Archaeology told me one of his professors was a top scholar on the Dead Sea Scrolls, although the student himself was studying Mesopotamia.

The gossip is that "El" was a guy, and "Elohim" were his 70 sons.

My interest isn't in proving that God didn't exist, but that the ancient Jews were following a man. If proven true, (and I can't even cite which Dead Sea Scrolls suggest such a thing), the House of Cards of the big-three monotheistic religions collapses.

That God _did_ exist, as in: he was born, procreated profusely and died.

Good luck, Archaeolgists!

[1] The Yarmukian Culture. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A or B you ask? I forget. Why do they call it pre-pottery neo-lithic when they had pottery, anyway? Some scientists!
[2] http://www.iranonline.com/History/jews-history/
[3] The King James Version of the Old Testament, and all Jewish versions of Tanakh, are primarily based on the Masoretic text, which was primarily based on the standardized version, produced in 1425AD, based on a copy from (?)1045AD. The Septuagint is the considered the secondary source, as it is the Greek Translation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

There's no way to put God to the test...

— Rev. Raymond J. Lawrence

... This whole exercise cheapens religion, and promotes an infantile theology that God is out there ready to miraculously defy the laws of nature in answer to a prayer.

or turns himself into wheat-based--and Only wheat-based--crackers every now and then.

On the subject of Pandas (as in Pandas thumb) the Danish Cartoonists Wullf and Morgenthaler have some - hmm - strange ideas about them.

The cartoon is perhaps not suited for small children (the boundaries for such things are a little wider in Denmark - the cartoon is placed on the bottom of the tv guide in one of the major newspapers in Denmark)

See these examples:
http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/thestrip.asp?cDay=9&cYear=2004&cMonth=10
http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/thestrip.asp?cDay=12&cYear=2004&cMonth=10
http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/thestrip.asp?cDay=24&cYear=2004&cMonth=9
http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/thestrip.asp?cDay=27&cYear=2004&cMonth=9

/Soren

Did you know humans lived with dinosaurs?

There have been petroglyphs found at Natural Bridges, Arizona, attributed to the Anasazi Indians who lived there between AD 400 and AD 1300, showing man and Apatosaurs (previously incorrectly named Brontosaurus) together.

These cave drawings cannot be "explained away" and are authentic. This COMPLETELY destroys the theory of evolution and the age of the earth and dinosaurs.

Did you know Carbon Dating is not used to date fossils? And when it IS used, it shows the fossils are only thousands of years old, not millions?

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconcieved notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out! And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

An Allosaurus bone was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated on August 10, 1990. The result was a carbon-14 date of 16,120 +/- 220 years.

They weren't told that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones (to remove any chance of potential bias). The result? The sample came back at 16,120 years old. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples.

Even carbon dating, as inaccurate as it is by thousands of years, still at least shows that the fossils are not millions of years old.

Another thing that contradicts the theory of evolution (and remember, it's just that - a theory, it hasn't been proven) - Ask your favorite evolutionary scientist to explain coal and oil.

Still not convinced?

Did you know that evolution is mathematically impossible?

The theory of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than the theory of evolution ever happening!

Here are some quotes from a couple famous scientists you may have heard of:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with modest powers must feel humble."
- Albert Einstein, towards the end of his life

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life origination at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. It is, therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligence . . . even to the limit of God."
- Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astrophysicist, an atheist for much of his life

evolutionary scientist to explain coal and oil.

— Matthew

Did you know Carbon Dating is not used to date fossils? And when it IS used, it shows the fossils are only thousands of years old, not millions?

— Matthew

There have been petroglyphs found at Natural Bridges, Arizona, attributed to the Anasazi Indians who lived there between AD 400 and AD 1300, showing man and Apatosaurs (previously incorrectly named Brontosaurus) together.

— Matthew

Alive? Not? 4th branch of life? Virus? bacteria? What is this thing?

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/full/041011-14.html

Matthew,

A quick perusal of the paintings at Lascaux showed a unicorn and some kind of a birdman, from the same approximate timeframe. Wild, huh? This must obviously mean that unicorns really existed and that there was at least one recent transitonal species between birds and homo sapiens, huh?

I'd be willing to bet you that if you sat Albert Einstein down at a keyboard and gave him 5 billion years he wouldn't be able to type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors either. So why the hell did you hobble yourself by specifying a monkey?

Hopefully you've got something a little more intelligent or relevant to offer if you decide to hang around?

I have a question that I wonder if anyone has attempted to answer. Consider all binary strings 550 digits in length. Everyone of those strings has an infinite number of specifications,ie, for each of those strings infinite number of algorithms that will generate that string out to the 550th place, though they will differ thereafter. More importantly, a very large number of those specifications will be compact, in the sense that they have low Kolmogorov complexity, or they can be defined succinctly in English (or French or Japanese etc.) This means, if I have understood Dembski correctly, that a very large number of the strings 550 binary digits long have CSI.

Here is the question: what proportion of strings 550 binary digits long have compact specifications?

I suspect we cannot get an exact answer to that question, but we should certainly be able to get a lower limit. Further, and quite plausibly, that lower limit is likely to be a very high proportion. Something like 1 in 1,000 or more.

The reason it is likely to be high is that the restraint of compact specification is so flexible. For example, the series: 110111001011101111000... clearly has a compact specification, for it is just the a binary count. But likewise, the sequence 10110111011110111110... has a compact specification for it is again just a simple count. Likewise, 01001000100001000001... has a compact specification. More sequences are generated by the decimal expansion of pi, the hexadecimal expansion of pi, the sequence of primes, various fibonacci sequences and so on.

We can then add simple word sequences. Forinstance:

01001101011001010111010001101000011010010110
11100110101101110011001000000110100101110100
00100000011010010111001100100000011011000110
10010110101101100101001000000110000100100000
01110111011001010110000101110011011001010110
110000100001

Is the binary representation of "Methinks it is like a weasel" in ASCII code. (We would need to extend the quote to get 550 digits.) We could also quote the passage in morse code using 0's for dashes and 1 for dot's, and vice-versa. We can then do the same for the 1, 2, 3, ..., and 25 shift Caesar ciphers, thus generating 75 compactly specified strings for every grammatical English passage of a certain length.

Because we have 550 digit stings rather than 500 digit strings, we can even have a small number of mispellings, and still excede Dembski's universal probability bound. "Me thinks it is like a wecsel!" is almost as well specified as the proper form. Allowing a maximum of one misplaced English character per string, this expands the number of strings specified by English utterances to 67 for the ASCII strings, and many more for Morse strings.

I think I have said enough to illustrate that, while the total number of binary strings 550 digits long is astronomically large, so also is the number of compactly specified binary strings 550 digits long.

Now can one of the mathematical or programming geniuses that frequent this site give an answer to my question - or alternatively indicate why my intuitions are leading me astray?

You might rather ask it on a computer science discussion board. They talk about things like Kolmogorov complexity. But they're not going to know what you mean by CSI, because it's not a recognized concept in computer science or information theory. They'll think you mean Channel State Information.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/20/how.many.genes.ap/index.html

This just in. Less "new information" needed to create humans than originally thought.

Scientists slash estimated number of human genes
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Posted: 1:07 PM EDT (1707 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- How many genes does it take to make a human? Only about the same number it takes for a small flowering plant or a tiny worm, says a new estimate that's sharply reduced from just three years ago.

Pasquale, could you please inform us about your mathematical theory which disproves 'Darwinism'? You said you'd make one. That was a good week ago. Please share your proof with us. Don't let it go the way of Paul Nelson's Ontological Depth Theory, which I'm sure will be equally devastating as soon as he creates it.

On Oct 10, Great White Wonder took to task the NYT for its << typically pandering article describing the state of the art with respect to understanding the alleged "healing power" of prayer. >>

Yeah, I saw that and reacted the same way you did. Maybe the NYT is outsourcing the roles of the editors to some country where they don't speak English?

You might prefer this one at Slate:

Poisons, Begone!
The dubious science behind the Scientologists' detoxification program for 9/11 rescue workers.
By Amanda Schaffer
Posted Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108471/

Nice to see some skeptical homework done.

Oh, and I'm glad those workers are feeling better, but I hope they're also seeing qualified doctors.

Fiona

Similarly, it can be shown that there are at least 2^(n-1) + 1 strings of length n for which the optimal compression has length at least n-1, at least 3 * 2^(n-2) + 1 strings of length n for which the optimal compression has length at least n - 2, and so on. In general there are at least 2^n - 2^(n-k) + 1 strings of length n for which the optimal compression has length at least n - k. It follows from this theorem that most strings have relatively high Kolmogorov complexity. Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"

Wesley, as I understand your claim, it has been shown that at least 1 more than half of all strings of length n cannot be compressed at all. I am not sure how this refutes my claim that potentially as many as 1 in a thousand strings have a compact specification. At most it shows that the proportion of all strings with a compact specification is less than half of all strings.

I am not sure it even shows that. An approximately 550 bit string representing the first n prime numbers in binary digits would have a compact specification. I sincerely doubt, however, that an algorithm to write the first n prime numbers could be expressed in 550 or fewer bits. What ever counts as "compact" for cashing out Dembski's notion of CSI, it must be significantly independant of string length. This means that the proportion of strings exhibiting CSI (assuming we can coherently define it) must fall of rapidly as the length of the strings increases. But this in turn does not mean a high proportion of very short strings (of the order 500 to 700 bits) do not have CSI. (By Dembski's definition, but not in Dembski's practise, no string shorter than 500 bits can have CSI.)

1) What is the current definition of CSI? (I ask because it's changed) over time.

2) Are there any interesting mathematical results involving this definition?

correction:

1) What is the current definition of CSI? (I ask because it's changed over time.)

2) Are there any interesting mathematical results involving this definition?

3) Are any non-creationist Information Theory researchers discussing CSI?

Tom, those questions are for you.

BTW, site overlords, I would gladly move to a registration system if it would cut down on the problems with comment spam. I depend on the 'recent comments' bar to see what's been said. It's not feasable to check the comment section of every post individually. So not only is comment spam annoying for you guys, it threatens our ability to see all the real comments.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/dwarf.cavewoman.ap/index.html

Weird.

That is really cool.

Come on Pasquale, it's been over a week since you said you'd come up with a mathematical proof that 'Darwinism' is impossible. What's the holdup?

PS--I'm going to email AiG about Homo floresiensis. I expect hilarity to ensue.

Science can't help following the evidence.

— Pete Dunkelberg

The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview.

Um, I think PT's link to "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" has gone south.

What is the most effective means to call that to the attention of the management committee?

Thanks to Jesus' General for pointing me to the fact that Kent Hovind has also got a problem with Jews, apparently. Oh, and you'll love the last bit.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=205

*sigh*

Spam is making keeping up with post very difficult

repost:

BTW, site overlords, I would gladly move to a registration system if it would cut down on the problems with comment spam. I depend on the 'recent comments' bar to see what's been said. It's not feasable to check the comment section of every post individually. So not only is comment spam annoying for you guys, it threatens our ability to see all the real comments.

If anyone ever writes a firefox extension to hide movable type posts which match certain keywords, please add "cialis" and "bestiality" to the list of "Charlie Wagner"s and "Bob Flynn"s.

is slightly different in details in his book versus Sober's rendition

The fact that the mutation-selection process has two parts ... is brought out vividly by Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker. ... Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random.

This analogy is offered in lieu of actual evidence ...

If one looks at what is actually claimed and the qualifiers that are put on these illustrations, one finds that the critics (like Behe above) routinely mischaracterize the aim, content, and scope of the claims in order to make it appear that an actual and legitimate critique has been offered, when these critics really have nothing more than the usual polemics. As I said before, I haven't seen any legitimate criticism of the WEASEL simulation offered yet that Dawkins did not cover in TBW. Looking at Behe's confused but bombastic rhetoric on the topic just reminds me of how pathetic these little forays into Dawkins-bashing (here through Sober as proxy) by IDCs often are. t.o. post of 2000/02/23

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Would it help to suppose that life is formed by on a gradual process? Not at all! Pretend that one needed 1500 steps to make primitive life. Pretend also, that there was a 50:50 chance that random processes would bring about the required step at any stage. Were one to go on successively to the formation of higher and higher living order, every new step would have to be a success and help the newly forming organism. One could not have or allow any steps which "failed", that is, which which took the organism back to a more primitive form or which killed it entirely. Hence, the probability of new life is (1/2)¹⁵⁰⁰, or, approximately, one chance in 10⁴⁵⁰. This is an impossible demand.

Prima facie, the production of life by random processes seems about as likely as the monkey's typing out the whole of Hamlet, or even the soliliquy, "To be or not to be." It may not be logically impossible; but as the Creationist argues, it is practically impossible. Suppose, however, that every time the monkey strikes the "right" letter, it records; but, suppose also that the "wrong" letters get rubbed out (literally or metaphorically!) And suppose that elimination of the wrong letter is the full consequence of a "mistake": one does not lose what has already been typed. Thus, if, having typed "to be or ...," the monkey types an n, it records, but if it types (say) x, it does not record. The typing of Hamlet no longer seems anything like so impossible, even by a "blind law" phenomenon, like a typing monkey. ... All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual.

All contradictions of the traditional theory ignored, evolutionary dogma continues to be shoveled with the dirt that uncovered Homo flores. Yet there is good news. The bones of Homo flores found are apparently not fossilized. That means scientists are hopeful they might yield DNA that could shed the truth on evolutionary theory and the absurdity of human descent from apes by proving Homo flores is genetically human.

Riiiiight. So let me see if I've got the evolutionist position straight.

1) WEASEL is not an analogy for evolution (as creationists suggest it is, when they highlight the weaknesses of WEASEL as an analogy) because the selection is imposed externally, unlike natural selection which can only work as it goes along. Any creationist who suggests that Weasel is an analogy for evolution deserves hanging - not for being wrong in correcting its use, but for misunderstanding Dawkins.

2) However, WEASEL is an analogy for evolution, in accordance with Sober and Ruse (contra creationists) because it shows how selection (with mutation) can drive evolution. Any creationists who suggest that Weasel is not an analogy for evolution deserve hanging for not seeing that it patently is.

Is that about it?

Well, the area in which WEASEL is supposed to work as an analogy(Sober, Ruse) - as showing that selection provides a mechanism for "advancing" evolution - is the exact area in which it differs from natural selection. WEASEL only works because of prior selection - as Dawkins acknowledged. So it should not be mentioned in the same chapter as natural selection, which can only work with selective advantage. And it certainly shouldn't be offered as the only analogue of evolution, or as an example to explain why evolution is intellectually credible. If this analogy is used, then its limitations ought to be made clear, and evolutionists ought to show that there is indeed evidence to show that the selective advantage conferred by mutations can drive evolution.

[Sober's] analogy is intended to illuminate how complex biological systems might have been produced. So we are asked to conclude, based on the spinning-disk analogy, that the cilium evolved step-by-step, that the initial steps in vision could be produced gradually, and so forth. The analogy is offered in lieu of actual evidence that these or other complex systems could have evolved in a Darwinian fashion. And Sober thinks the analogy is so compelling that, based on it, Darwinian evolution now wins as the inference to the best explanation.

If this analogy is used, then its limitations ought to be made clear, and evolutionists ought to show that there is indeed evidence to show that the selective advantage conferred by mutations can drive evolution.

Yes, but unless you can show that mutation plus selection works for an otherwise unspecified piece of DNA, then you can't use it as a basis for evolution.

This is of course a necessary but not sufficient step to demonstrating the possibility of evolution - you still need to show how DNA replication might come about etc, but let's start with the easy bit.

one time a meteorologist I know tried to tell me about the secular "precipitation cycle". I pointed out that he could not give me ironclad evidence of how the so-called quarks which make up the atoms which make up the water which supposedly make up the clouds came from. Therefore his talk of evaporation was a necessary but not sufficient step to demonstrating the possibility of rain. You'd think that professional meteoroligists would know more about that stuff than a layman like me, but I guess not, considering that with no expertise I refuted his arguments.

Yes, but unless you can show that mutation plus selection works for an otherwise unspecified piece of DNA, then you can't use it as a basis for evolution.

This is of course a necessary but not sufficient step to demonstrating the possibility of evolution - you still need to show how DNA replication might come about etc, but let's start with the easy bit.

So timmy you are saying that because a meteorologist can't talk to you about quantum physics that what he/she has to say about how rain forms is not good enough for you thus you God must put every drop of rain in the clouds?

What were his arguments?

What did you refute his arguments with?

The world according to Timmy must be a sad place in dead if, because people can not explain everything in the universe, God has to have a direct hand in everything.

I suppose Timmy would blame God if he failed a test because surely he could not have done anything about the test because it is really God in the background pulling all the strings.

Please PLEASE Timmy tell me I misunderstand what you are saying.

I will explain in a private email.

Wayne,

"Creationist Timmy" is a satirist.

Hope that helps.

shhhhhhh!

I enjoyed the satire. An excellent illustration of the truism that it's a blessing to be stupid, for you cannot understand the nature of your condition.

I do not have satyriasis, Mister "Wesley Elsberry", if that is your real name.

I'm a little bit thick at times...ok all the time but that is not my fault....My mother is a loon. Hmmm wait I don't think that her being a loon is genetic....my grandparents are fine and there is a story of her hitting her head as a baby.

It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift ... This case still provides an excellent example of a New Protein that evolved without the assistance of an Intelligent Designer.

So, we have how many proteins active in cells that we know about? and how many functional genes? And in intensive lab experiments, we see a change in functionality related to a single nucleotide and hail this as a breakthrough in our explanation of evolution? I don't think so.

Yes, but unless you can show that mutation plus selection works for an otherwise unspecified piece of DNA, then you can't use it as a basis for evolution.

Your last three questions:

Dawkins - yes - I have checked, and he moved on from there to show how "selection" of "genetically" coded features in a program could result in an evolving morphology - a different analogy.

Ruse, Dennett and Sober - don't know - I admit I was citing Behe, who says of Sober, "Rather, he rejects design and embraces Darwinism based primarily ... on an analogy" - i.e. WEASEL.

However WEASEL is completely unanalogous (=>alagous?) to the process by which natural selection is supposed to occur, even though strings of letters look like sequences of amino acids, and there is an analogy between well-formed sequences of letters (sentences) and well-formed sequences of amino acids. So putting it in a chapter with that context was asking for trouble. By your own admission it continues to be cited by evolutionists as demonstrating how selection will allow progress towards a target EVEN THOUGH IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY DAWKINS AND EVERYBODY HERE THAT IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. So it is:
- a really neat model that
- looks like evolution
- and is in a chapter about evolution
- and is widely quoted by evolutionists.
It's hardly surprising if people then assume that it demonstrates evolution. It's hardly surprising if creationists spend a lot of time trying to make clear that it doesn't.

Behe - Dawkins - no, certainly not explicity. Sober, Ruse and Dennett - yes, I think so. Again, whether it was justified, I don't know without reading what they have written. However again, given that WEASEL has nothing to do with evolution, why bother reproducing that particular analogy? Why not talk about how natural selection allows successive mutations of amino acids within a protein to convey selective advantage to subsequent generations of organisms? With maybe an example of how that works in Drosophila or E.Coli? Answer - because although everybody knows this is how evolution works, there is actually no evidence of it.

Dembski - don't know - can you give a reference? However, I for one would be quite happy for it to be publicised as loudly as possible that WEASEL is not an analogy for evolution - let's face it, The Blind Watchmaker has had a substantially wider readership than The Design Inference - and most of the readers were not biologists, and probably didn't think for a minute that scientists could be anything other than neutral observers of phenomena, rather than anti-religious thought police.

Does Dembski say that random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce novel specified complexity? Then what he says is false, for we have here an example from nature, reproduced in the laboratory, of novel specified complexity produced by Random Mutation and Natural Selection.

...but there is not a "continuity" of forms, but lots of different distinct forms.

— aCTa

Now regardless of what you might say, this is a problem for evolution - and represents the grounds for discussion between people who believe in punctuated equilibrium and gradualists

— aCTa

Further, whereas Darwin believed that as you looked at smaller and smaller scale things would get simpler, it has become apparent that once you reach the level of proteins, coding and replication, things are still very complicated and subtle.

— aCTa

And whilst the mechanisms of life can show how functionality is preserved through our beloved common (micro-)descent, it still hasn't shown how new functionality can appear through common macro-descent.

— aCTa

Wrong. The specified complexity was there before - RM+NS hasn't produced it. It has allowed it to be expressed. A change to "a single nucleotide" doesn't represent the appearance of specified complexity.

Wayne - Macro vs micro:

Here is a litre jar containing $100 in pennies. You can't prove to me that $100,000,000 in pennies will fit into it. You can't simply say that what happens on a large scale will always be like what happens on a small scale, only more so. There are limits.

Tom: The sequence may not have been doing anything before the frame mutation. That doesn't mean that it was random, or unspecified. If it was then it was a very lucky hit, don't you think? I mean, one mutation and ta-daa!! a new enzyme. Or do you really think that just any old piece of random DNA would be just one frame shift away from an enzyme coding a hitherto unimagined function? Certainly natural selection, but you've still got this big improbability attached to the fact that something highly specified was only one mutation away from being expressed. I'd really like to know just how lucky that was.

And no, if by specified in your last sentence you mean having functionality, then all random sequences aren't specified.

Troll, just fyi, Tom Curtis has you pinned against the ropes and you've obviously suffered incurable brain damage from the hits you've taken thus far.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting in the audience watching you get pummelled and all I ask, Troll, is that when you involuntarily defecate all over yourself, could you please try not to get any on me?

And Tom, I like my pulp extra bloody so please keep up the good work. If Troll must be allowed to live another day, you might want to consider branding him for future identification. The iron is on the coals, you know, the one that begins with "L - I ..."

Here is a litre jar containing $100 in pennies. You can't prove to me that $100,000,000 in pennies will fit into it. You can't simply say that what happens on a large scale will always be like what happens on a small scale, only more so. There are limits.

— aCTa

Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc..... each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?" What sequence of horse fossils? They are NOT found in order on the same continent. (R.E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, p.65) Moreover, the similarities of all of these horses could be easily explained as variation within the same "biblical kind," or "microevolution," not "macroevolution." A horse is still a horse. Assuming evolution occurred, which this author has gratuitously done, is not the only way to explain it. There are further problems with the horse series.

The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a 'species' as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept Well with equus we see varying levels of degree where a "Kind" can interbreed with varying levels of success. And as we expect the more "micro-evolutionary" changes that occur the less successful the interbreeding becomes. At some point the situation will cause interbreeding to become nothing more then an act of copulation. But we have more in the article that is "moving the goal post" Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species - changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.

— Ligers and Wholphins

This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information.

— Ligers and Wholphins

Perhaps students who insist that evolution is bogus should be asked to write a short term paper defending ID. If their paper quotes a scientist out of context or grossly misrepresents the conclusions of a paper or relies on an incomprehensible untestable presumption, the student will be given an "F". That seems fair. What do you think, Salvador? Does that seem fair to you? If not, why? Let's see if you can write an answer without falling into the usual pitfalls which merit an "F" ! You claim to have graduated high school. Prove it, by making an argument for ID that a high schooler couldn't destroy in five minutes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/09/amphibianf.ap/index.html

Check out this ass-kicking salamander skull fossil.

I urge everyone to go get Firefox 1.0, released today. Also, peruse the available extensions. I've found 4 I can't live without now. Firefox is such a better browser that now the idea of going back to internet explorer is disgusting to me.

Much of the info the pandas thumb server has to send everyone is redundant. Measures like one which for instance hid comments over (some number of) comments ago, might help with the traffic and server load? For instance, there are 23,000 words on this page which the server sends each time. Maybe hiding the oldest comments behind an Archive button?

Wayne: Let's consider the mutation case for now. I assume that to avoid confusicating me, you simplified the description of mutations, and didn't mention neutral mutations, which would presumably constitute the majority. However, in the case of humans, you are saying that significant chromosomal abnormalities are basically harmful - 90% cause the death of the fetus, 10% make it to livebirth, but many of these abnormalities are actually "syndromes" which would have a harmful effect on the human being as an organism. I've seen tables of the effect of having irregular numbers of sex chromosomes has, for example.

Presumably, you would argue that beneficial changes won't have a big effect (i.e. no "hopeful monsters"), and that their impact just has a selective advantage which spreads across the population in the fullness of time through the normal course of sexual reproduction. And that species differentiation would follow group isolation etc etc.

Be that as it may, you talk about different chromosome numbers. You mention the fact that the offspring of common horses (64) and donkeys (62) are normally sterile, or produce sterile offspring. Now changes in chromosome numbers must be critical to evolution (along with the appearance of chromosomes at some stage, but let's put that to one side for now). Is there any evidence that offspring with a different number of chromosomes can produce fertile offspring? Given that such a mutation would be a "one-off" event, does it occur frequently enough anywhere to give a high likelihood that two so-affected offspring would be able to find each other and breed successfully to establish a new species? Do we have populations of animals (any phylum) in which a proportion have different numbers of chromosomes? Or is having a different number of chromosomes in effect an instant "speciation" event? These are genuine questions - you may have excellent answers.

PS. GWW, good grief, you're offensive! Have you tried counselling?

PS. GWW, good grief, you're offensive!

Have you tried counselling?

Is there any evidence that offspring with a different number of chromosomes can produce fertile offspring?

These are genuine questions

Is there any evidence that offspring with a different number of chromosomes can produce fertile offspring

— aCTa

Common Horses have 64 chromosomes Przewalski have 66 chromosomes Donkeys have 62. Mules (a Common Horse / Donkey hybrid) result in 63 chromosomes Mules are normally sterile. In some cases you can get fertile Mules but to date these fertile offspring have produced only infertile offspring. Hybrids of Przewalski and Common Horses not only have a high viability rate but are also normally fertile.

— Wayne Post #

you simplified the description of mutations, and didn't mention neutral mutations

— aCTa

Now a random mutation in a base pair could have little to no effect. Such as with an alteration of Valine from GUU to GUC since both of these form the same amino acid.

— Wayne Post #10080

Good going Wayne,

You'd think that at some point they'd just cut their losses and accept that speciation - at least according to current definitions - is occurring, and try a different tack.

IIRC, Behe has at times given in to the extent of saying that everything from single-celled organisms could have arrived via evolution, but that organism must have been designed.

Some authorities feel strongly that the Przewalski horse is the ancestor of all modern breeds. Others point out that it is a different species from the domesticated horse, having 66 chromosomes as compared to the 64 of the domestic horse. They further point out that while crosses between the Przewalski and domestic horses result in a fertile hybrid, the offspring has 65 chromosomes. Subsequent crosses result in 64 chromosomes and bear little resemblance to the Przewalski.

I believe that all humans of any sort have more dignity than the sum of their biological outputs.

To Charlie Wagner,

It's interesting that the original author of the screed you have on your website (I've seen it before so many times, I really have no idea who wrote it) decided to overlook another quite obvious dichotomy between the "thousands of objects" s/he has observed: living and non-living. Why is that, do you suppose? It seems an even more relevent distinction than "complex machine" and "non-complex machine"; perhaps you could explain why the "complex" distinction is more important than the "living" one....

Think you're up to the task?

Why is an airplane more like a dog than a mountain? Neither mountains nor airplanes can react to outside stimuli (unless you count sustaining damage as "a reaction"); neither airplanes nor mountains can produce other airplanes or mountains; neither airplanes nor mountains can move of their own volition; neither airplanes nor mountains require sufficient sustenance at regular intervals and become premanently inert if they do not recieve such (an airplane that receives neither fuel nor maintenance for decades can be returned to an operable state through the judicious application of both; try that with a dog, and see how far you get). The list could go on and on and on; please explain why we should ignore these similarites between the airplane and the mountain in favor of the "similarities" between the airplane and the dog. And while you're at it, perhaps you should get a bit more specific about what those similarities are...stars are "complex machines" under "your" suitably vague definition, yes? But we've observed stars in all the stages of formation, and we've yet to see any sort of designer at work (while this example has nothing to do with evolution, it sure seems relevant to your definition of a "designed object").

I'll be waiting for your response. But I won't hold my breath.

Attempts were made to encourage such machines to create themselves. Computer components were stored together in boxes but no assembled computers emerged. A bicycle that I bought for my granddaughter was stored in my shed, but no assembled bicycle emerged. Junkyards were observed before and after tornadoes, but no airplanes emerged from the experience.

So within Equidae, there appears to be very little scope for different numbers of chromosomes to result in new developmental pathways at the moment. Are there any other phyla that you'd like me to consider?

— aCTa

I believe that all humans of any sort have more dignity than the sum of their biological outputs

— aCTa

Whilst people with Down's Syndrome have the same dignity as any other human beings, they are less able to achieve an independent life than people not so affected, and have lower life expectancy

— aCTa

Is there any evidence that offspring with a different number of chromosomes can produce fertile offspring

— aCTa

You might want to apologize for wasting our time, too

— GWW

If you store dog parts in a box, no assembled dog will emerge, but if you place a few (unneutered) dogs of each gender in a shed for six months or so (with enough food and water, or course) and leave them undistrubed, I theorize than more than the original number of dogs will emerge at the end of this experiment.

If so, then who designed the new dogs, Charlie? Did they design themselves? Was a tornado involved?

IIRC, Behe has at times given in to the extent of saying that everything from single-celled organisms could have arrived via evolution, but that organism must have been designed.

— Steve

Where, oh where, is Charlie? Someone didn't "do what [we] usually do . . . ignore it," and what's his response?

He ignores it. Typical creationist hack; he can dish it out, but Lord he can't take it....

Where, oh where, is Charlie? Someone didn't "do what [we] usually do . . . ignore it," and what's his response? He ignores it. Typical creationist hack; he can dish it out, but Lord he can't take it . . . .

And yet you still haven't addressed any of the points I made in my earlier posts. Curious that.

And yet you still haven't addressed any of the points I made in my earlier posts. Curious that.

Perhaps my original criticisms were a bit too complicated for you, Charlie. Let's see if you can address some of the simpler problems with "your" essay.

1) "You" say "evolution is not an increase in information, it's an increase in organization." Why is this statement true? The eyes of blind cave fish, the human appendix, and chromosomal fusion events are merely three examples of a decrease in organization due to evolution, are they not? If you're going to claim that they are not, please explain why not. Surely you're not going to start trying to redefine "organization" or trying to claim these are decreases in "information" as a way out of this, are you?

2) "You" say "the new variation, the improvements, so to speak, must occur as a result of purely random processes, which is known to be impossible." Putting aside for a moment the fact that evolutionary theory makes no claims that "improvements" are a result of PURELY random processes, since it is "known to be impossible" that such variations could occur randomly, it should be a simple matter for you to expalin WHY it is impossible, yes? You shouldn't even have to think about it to answer that one, but please, don't make an appeal to it being "statistically unlikely," okay? Statistics are tricky beasts in the hands of the unwary; after all, I'd be willing to bet that you have more than the statistical average number of fingers and toes....

3) "You" say "...I would have to say that any of the so-called 'experts' who claim that these models are anything more than mere speculation are misguided." So why exactly is "YOUR" "model" anything more than mere speculation, since there is a marked lack of relevant empirical evidence in "your" essay. Observing junkyards pre- and post-tornado seems an extremely silly exercise, since the analogy between an airplane and a dog rests soley on "your" claim that classifying things by "complexity" is more relevant than classifying them as "living" or "non-living." Which, incidentally, you still haven't tried to justify, either on this board or in "your" article, but since I've already granted you a temporary pass on that one, you shouldn't feel obligated to address it just yet. Likewise, you don't need to explain why seeing a computer assemble itself from a collection of parts is in any way analogous to the evolution of, well, any structure, since evolution operates on populations rather than individuals. We'll save that one for later.

4) Why is "your" claim that "...since no complex, highly organized system has ever bootstrapped itself into existence from nothing, that it is highly likely that living organisms, which fall into the same category, likewise required an intelligent author" not a tautological argument? After all, "you" have essentially just claimed that since individual airplanes don't self-assemble, dogs obviously couldn't have evolved because dogs are "complex machines," just like airplanes, and since dogs couldn't have evolved, there is no exception to the "rule" which the airplane example illustrates, which proves that "complex machines" can't self-assemble. All of this brings me back to the whole classification issue again, which is why my first post addressed it, but we'll stick to the simpler stuff for now.

As a short aside, as far as I can tell, the only truly honest thing "you" wrote in that essay was the following: "Since there is no limit to the ability of the human mind to dream up hypothetical scenarios, then if you use that as a guideline, anything is possible, rendering the conclusions meaningless." This applies equally well to "your" claims, and since "your" "model" doesn't appear able to produce any testable, potentially refutable hypotheses, it seems terribly ironic that "you" keep invoking the scientific method, both in "your" essay and in your latest post.

Rest assured, there are many other problems (both logical and scientific) with "your" article, but these four points should be good enough to start with. Please, by all means, oblidge me by discussing these points as you so generously offered to do in your last post.

"And here's the short answer to your question: the person making the analogy gets to pick the comparator. In my case, I selected the property of the items I chose as possessing structures and processes that were highly organized into a functional system. Machines have this property and so do living organisms. Machines are like living organisms: A is like B
Then I said "machines require intelligent input to build": A has property P (intelligent input).
My conclusion is: "B also has property P" (living organisms also require intelligent input)"

So the logic map is:
A = B
A has property P
ergo
B has property P

This is a perfectly valid logical argument, as far as it goes. Now please prove that A actually equals B, and note that the fact that you say "A has some properties that are similar to B" does NOT equate to "A = B." Coke and water are both liquids (C is like W), but humans aren't ~80% Coke, now are they?

Incidentally, the reason I doubt that you wrote the article is becasue I have read essentially the same thing many times before. I, too, am a teacher, and I'm intimately familiar with plagarism, so things that have essentially identical turns of phrase and identical examples (right down to the "granddaughter's bicycle") register immediately with me. No, I don't have a link off-hand, but I'll google the phrase and see what I can find.

"WRT the concept of "living" and "non-living", it's my opinion that when living organisms are functioning as they should, all the systems are working, all the processes active, then we say it is "alive". When the systems stop functioning, the organism becomes "non-living". Likewise, you can draw an analogy between a living organism and a working computer. I think the difference is only in degree. When the computer is functioning, it's receiving energy, its microprocessor is actively processing information, it's disk drive is storing data, it's doing work. I don't really see why we don't consider it "alive" in the same sense as a living organism."

Well, mainly because it fails two of the basic biological tests for life: 1) it doesn't grow and 2) it doesn't reproduce. Besides, when dealing with anything more comlplex than microflora and -fauna, when you truly shut down (ie: not sleep or hibernation) a living organism for any appreciable length of time (like, say, a week or so), you can't start it back up again. Trust me, I've shut my computer down for far longer, and it's suffered no ill effects.

You see, the essential problem with your argument, the one which is far more important than all the ancillary errors you've commited, is that the relevant differences between A and B MUST be taken into account when creating an analogy based on the similarities between A and B. Ariplanes don't reproduce. Dogs do. Why is this fact irrelevent to your claim that "A is like B" in terms of refuting evolution - because in this respect you must admit that A is most definitely NOT like B - since evolution (the fact, not the theory) operates due to reproduction? This lack of similarity is inherenly relevant to your argument against evolution, and will remain so until you can adequatly demonstrate otherwise. To go back to my Coke analogy, it would be similar to me claiming sweat cannot be clear because Coke is brown, and Coke and water are both liquids. Yes, as the person making the analogy, I get to decide what the comparator is, but if I ignorantly or willfully ignore the relevant differences between Coke and water (as you appear to be doing between airplanes and dogs), then my analogy is fundamentally flawed.

As is yours.

raybolger, I can't easily tell what in your above post is a quote, and what isn't. With these formatting tags you might find it easier to write complicated posts. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000173.html

Steve,

Thanks for the info.

Charlie,

I'm leaving for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond to any of your replies before Monday. Snarkiness and frustration aside, if you're actually serious in your questioning rather than simply trying to yank some chains, I'll actually look forward to continuing this conversation. I've been somewhat less than charitable, and if you are of the former category, you don't deserve such brusque treatment. If this proves to be the case, allow me to extend my apology for any rudeness.

If not, then not.

Incidentally, the reason I doubt that you wrote the article is becasue I have read essentially the same thing many times before. I, too, am a teacher, and I'm intimately familiar with plagarism, so things that have essentially identical turns of phrase and identical examples (right down to the "granddaughter's bicycle") register immediately with me. No, I don't have a link off-hand, but I'll google the phrase and see what I can find.

An effective method of satire is to take the other side's premise and run with it to Crazytown. (Not much exercise if the other side is religion or it's offspring creationism. In those cases Crazytown's about 10 ft away.) So when these idiots pop up with their "America is founded on the Bible" dipshitism, I wonder why a group of secularists haven't started a coalition to get the first commandment written into law.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Hey, the ten commandments are the basis of American government, right? Isn't that what they say? That's the very first commandment. Surely it deserves a premier place in American law. Let's amend the constitution. No citizen of these states and territories shall worship any god other than Jehova. Ah, truly, this shall make America glorious, the proverbial city on a hill. Nearer my god to thee.

With apologies to the author of NELSON'S LAW, and addressing what I believe to be it's fundamental flaw, I again offer HORATIO'S HYPOTHESIS(Short Version):

INITIAL HYPOTHESIS: It appears that all observed complex, highly organized machines whose origins can be determined with certainty are the product of HUMAN design. This is true in every observed case. Therefore, it is hypothesized that all complex machines, including those whose origins are unknown, are the product of HUMAN design.

EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOLS: Identical

CONCLUSION: Every single complex, organized machine whose origin could be determined, was seen to be the result of HUMAN input. No complex, organized machine whose origin could be determined was seen to assemble itself without the benefit of HUMAN input. The conclusion is that all such machines, including those that have not been specifically examined are likely to be the result of HUMAN design.

LIVING ORGANISMS: Living organisms are biochemical machines that are complex and highly organized. Although their origin cannot be determined with certainty, it must be assumed that since all OTHER such known machines are the product of HUMAN input, biological machines too must have this as a requirement.

Of course, this hypothesis does not, and cannot - in the absence of supporting evidence - preclude the existence or discovery of a yet to be identified ALTERNATE DESIGNER that might provide an alternate explanation for their origin.

Our conclusion in the interim then, must be that all complex and highly organized machines, both biological and not, are the result of HUMAN intelligence and input.

This initial conclusion is reached with full awareness of the implication it presents - leading as it does to the inescapable second conclusion; that we HUMANS were involved, from or before "The Gitgo," in our own creation. I admit to being - temporarily I hope - stymied here, but that's how it looks based on where the presently available evidence leads.

I can only (ala Michael Behe's newest definition of Irreducible Complexity) invite others with a greater depth of knowledge, ability, and/or insight to do the research and disprove this conclusion, with the requisite qualifier that any inability to so disprove will be necessarily viewed as a PROOF OF the conclusion.

Come on, NO comments on my "They worshipped a guy named El" scrawl on your bathroom wall?

It's not there is no God, it is that there was a guy they called "Top Dog" or "Great One" who ruled. His common name was "El" (as in "El Presidente"). His 70 "sons" were "Elohim."

Re: Comment 8604

With apologies to the author of NELSON'S LAW,

Bob, pointing out Charlie's bad logical form was recently established by NIST to be the international definition of Beating a Dead Horse. I have here Nelson's Earth-Only Constraint. It definitively refutes the SETI project:

INITIAL HYPOTHESIS: It appears that all observed complex, highly organized machines whose origins can be determined with certainty are created on Earth. This is true in every observed case. Therefore, it is hypothesized that all complex machines, including those whose origins are unknown, are the product of Earthly origin.

LIVING ORGANISMS: Living organisms are biochemical machines that are complex and highly organized. Although their origin cannot be determined with certainty, it must be assumed that since all OTHER such known machines are the product of Earthly origin, biological machines too must have this as a requirement.

Of course, this hypothesis does not, and cannot - in the absence of supporting evidence - preclude the existence or discovery of a yet to be identified ALTERNATE DESIGNER that might provide an alternate explanation for their origin.

Our conclusion in the interim then, must be that all complex and highly organized machines, both biological and not, are the result of Earthly origin.

;-)

Charlie,

Remember, that was the short form, which simply substituted the more precise and appropriate observation concerning the origin of complex organized machines - Human Design - for the infuriating, overly broad, and potentially intentional obfuscation of Intelligent Design. To put it bluntly, the predicted property is HUMAN design, as your argument proves, despite your protestations. It simply defies understanding that you don't realize that.

If I'm not stating something correctly, or not following the proper format, that fault must be assigned to the author of Nelson's Law, whose model I slavishly followed.

The long version would have been a complete copy and paste of the NELSON'S LAW essay, with the corrected attributions inserted where warranted.

Steve,

What is NIST?

Your example, though accurate, suffers from the same less than specific vagueness of Nelson's Law, as detailed in my previous post.

At present, humans exist permanently only on Earth, as the sole and single (self)verified "intelligent" entity on this planet, so it logically follows that any claimed incident of intelligent action would be more narrowly, properly, and specifically identified as an example of HUMAN origin :^)

Yeah, I was being facetious. People have pointed out Charlie's flawed logic a dozen times, there's no point in me making yet another serious case against it.

Looking up things like NIST would be easy if you have the great Firefox browser, which has a google search bar built in. Anything's better than IE, which is really a collection of security flaws, with some incidental browser-like features. if you want to know how bad it is, CNET's blurb for their review of the latest IE says "Switch to Firefox.' In the damn blurb.

Steve,

I know you were being facetious, but, damn it, what is NIST? I don't have Firefox.

Do you have the internet?

The NIST I know of is National Institute of Standards and Technology. Used to be called National Bureau of Standards.

Thanks, Frank. Steve, should I be facetious here and say no and ask you what the internet is? :)

Remember, that was the short form, which simply substituted the more precise and appropriate observation concerning the origin of complex organized machines

Charlie,

You said, "Your claim makes no provision for the possibilities that other intelligences exist outside of the earth (or on the earth, but unidentified) that are far superior to human intelligence and are capable of building living organisms."

You must have missed this in my post, #10245: "Of course, this hypothesis does not, and cannot - in the absence of supporting evidence - preclude the existence or discovery of a yet to be identified ALTERNATE DESIGNER that might provide an alternate explanation for their origin. Our conclusion in the interim then, must be that all complex and highly organized machines, both biological and not, are the result of HUMAN intelligence and input."

Our conclusion in the interim then, must be that all complex and highly organized machines, both biological and not, are the result of HUMAN intelligence and input."

Charlie,

Your preference for the broader property of "intelligence" notwithstanding, how can you suggest that my claim is weaker? My claim is based only on the evidence at hand, which you provided - although imprecisely; your claim depends on an unknown, unidentified and, from an evidentiary standpoint, nonexistent Alternate Designer.

HORATIO'S HYPOTHESIS merely clarifies what NELSON'S LAW actually proves. I'm just trying to help you out. I alluded to the very problem you reference, with this comment: "This initial conclusion is reached with full awareness of the implication it presents - leading as it does to the inescapable second conclusion; that we HUMANS were involved, from or before "The Gitgo," in our own creation. I admit to being - temporarily I hope - stymied here, but that's how it looks based on where the presently available evidence leads."

Your preference for the broader property of "intelligence" notwithstanding, how can you suggest that my claim is weaker? My claim is based only on the evidence at hand, which you provided - although imprecisely; your claim depends on an unknown, unidentified and, from an evidentiary standpoint, nonexistent Alternate Designer.

I'm just trying to help you out.

(response to Comment 10277 on "Cobb County News")

Mark,

Your hypothesis that the sticker may backfire is interesting, and I can't really disagree with it.

But later you say "I have my own doubts about Darwin's theory." and "That philosophy is Methodological Naturalism, which maintains that, by definition, scientific explanations are naturalistic. This precludes a priori any appeal to Intelligent Design as a possible explanation of observed phenomena, or to poltergeists as the cause of strange bumpings in the night."

Note that one can have doubts about Darwin's theory and not necessarily doubts about MN (it's a process, not a philosophy), or vice versa. Yet in practice, nearly everyone who demands "equal time" or "critical analysis" somehow ties those unrelated concerns together.

MN does not preclude a priori appeals to ID, but seeks explanations which answer the "hows" as well as the "what happened and when." MN could say that "a designer did it," but then the important questions would still remain. So the designer part, which MN never rules out in the first place, is a totally unnecessary part of the explanation. That, plus the fact that ID in the general sense is unfalsifiable, is why ID-speak is not a part of MN, at least when it comes to the designer of cells and universes. Besides, many if not most MN advocates believe in a designer of cells and universes, and the great majority of us remain unconvinced that such a designer can be "caught" by the same detective work that gives us the mortal "culprits" in forensics, archaeology, and maybe someday, SETI.

Without regard to whether or not a designer was involved, is there a potential alternate theory that you are less inclined to doubt than Darwin's?

[Methodological naturalism] precludes a priori any appeal to Intelligent Design as a possible explanation of observed phenomena, or to poltergeists as the cause of strange bumpings in the night.

Charlie, get a grip. Are you now suggesting that ferrets or eastern chain king snakes are the real alternate designer?

Human beings are the only KNOWN life forms to have ever existed which are intelligent enough to build complex, highly organized machines. If you did not intend for Nelson's Law to suggest that all living organisms are therefor the result of human intelligence, then you'd better get back to your computer and do a rewrite.

Nelson's Law is your baby. You're the one who rather arrogantly offered the vague and imprecise analogy, disturbingly similar to Dembski's nonsense - I simply blew away the fog and restated it in a manner consistent with the hard evidence.

I enthusiastically accept the possibility that there may be other, non-human and vastly superior, intelligences awaiting discovery. Until we discover them though, we're the only game in town and yes, I think humans are the only KNOWN life forms capable of building highly organized, complex machines - and if you're not just blowing smoke or fronting for creationists or just plain out of touch, you do too.

Charlie, get a grip.

An analogy is only as good as its ability to persuade.

What I think you're doing is refusing to accept the possibility that there may be other intelligences that are not human, and which are superior to human intelligence, and are capable of building living organisms. Do you think humans are the only life forms capable of building highly organized, complex machines?

— CW

I just had the opportunity to listen to Richard Dawkins last night in San Francisco. Fascinating man and a great evening. There was a Q&A session, but I didn't get a chance to ask, so I thought I would post here:

How do feelings (love, hate, anger, joy, happiness) fit with natural selection?

If we focus on just love for example, I would speculate that love has very little to do with survival. Why wouldn't we have evolved 'out of love' rather than what I perceive as evolving 'into love'? Don't strong emotional feelings just get in the way? I can't believe bacteria had feelings, so feelings or emotions must have evolved with us, right?

patrick

I just had the opportunity to listen to Richard Dawkins last night in San Francisco. Fascinating man and a great evening. There was a Q&A session, but I didn't get a chance to ask, so I thought I would post here:

How do feelings (love, hate, anger, joy, happiness) fit with natural selection?

If we focus on just love for example, I would speculate that love has very little to do with survival. Why wouldn't we have evolved 'out of love' rather than what I perceive as evolving 'into love'? Don't strong emotional feelings just get in the way? I can't believe bacteria had feelings, so feelings or emotions must have evolved with us, right?

patrick

How do feelings (love, hate, anger, joy, happiness) fit with natural selection?

Patrick: I would speculate that love has very little to do with survival.

Really? I wouldn't. Probably has still more to do with survival of offspring.

Cognitive ethology, especialy the works of Donald Griffin have alot to say about emotion, cognition and self-awareness in evolution.

"There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention and curiosity, imitation, reason, etc., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes a well-developed condition, in the lower animals."

I have seen in the newspaper today that a common antecessor of all giant apes (i.e. humans, gorillas, orang-utans, etc) has been found in Cataluña, Spain. Unfortunately, I wouldn't trust a newspaper to correctly report the finding of a brown paper bag, so I would like to have some confirmation from y'all. According to the article, the study was published in Nature. Is this really true (all of it, not just the bit about Nature).

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

We describe a partial skeleton with facial cranium of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus gen. et sp. nov., a new Middle Miocene (12.5 to 13 million years ago) ape from Barranc de Can Vila 1 (Barcelona, Spain). It is the first known individual of this age that combines well-preserved cranial, dental, and postcranial material. The thorax, lumbar region, and wrist provide evidence of modern ape--like orthograde body design, and the facial morphology includes the basic derived great ape features. The new skeleton reveals that early great apes retained primitive monkeylike characters associated with a derived body structure that permits upright postures of the trunk. Pierolapithecus, hence, does not fit the theoretical model that predicts that all characters shared by extant great apes were present in their last common ancestor, but instead points to a large amount of homoplasy in ape evolution. The overall pattern suggests that Pierolapithecus is probably close to the last common ancestor of great apes and humans.

So, where's the content of the "Recent Comments" box on the home page gone to? Evolved into something un-displayable?

How do feelings (love, hate, anger, joy, happiness) fit with natural selection?

— Patrick

Thank you for all your comments and suggestions for further reading. Much appreciated. Have a great week of thanksgiving!

patrick

was that an instruction addressed to you? or are you reading commandments addressed to somebody else? Do you have elders at the gate of your town? Would "all Israel" hear of you doing this?

Oh right, that question. OK. I thought it was one of the hard ones about evolution.

Well, quite straightforward. Pretty intuitive, really, no surprises at all. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. Love your neighbour as yourself." Same for ancient Hebrews and modern Israelites.

Unfortunately, it's impossible.

I can't go back over all the posts that relate to me. However, Wayne, in short, the examples you have given fall a long way short of demonstrating that changes in chromosome numbers can be an evolutionary step. Changing chromosome numbers must be an "everyday" or at least "everymillenium" part of evolution - because closely-"related" animals have different numbers of chromosomes, and these numbers are stable - even when you breed different species that can still produce offspring, chromosome numbers will head back to the stable value quickly or the line will die out. I would expect if evolution were to work that:-

if changes in chromosome numbers are "hopeful monster" changes, you should see a small but significant proportion of changes to chromosome numbers that result in viable new lines (you have not given evidence of this)

if changes in chromosome numbers are "gradualistic" changes, you would see populations of animals today that are essentially the same species to all intents and purposes, but with different numbers of chromosomes. Is there evidence of this?

Evolution is founded on gradualism - Darwin assumed as much; Dawkins asserts as much. But changes in numbers of chromosomes aren't gradual changes, and no evidence presented so far shows that this is a barrier that evolutionists know how to cross.

GWW: I don't spend my time "belittling the work of thousands" of scientists - unless it takes thousands of scientists to respond to me on here, which I seriously doubt - I'm not that clever! I think that they work hard and conscientiously. My disagreement with evolutionists is at the level of underlying worldview, which affects how conclusions are interpreted - but the science is sound enough.

Changing chromosome numbers must be an "everyday" or at least "everymillenium" part of evolution - because closely-"related" animals have different numbers of chromosomes, and these numbers are stable - even when you breed different species that can still produce offspring, chromosome numbers will head back to the stable value quickly or the line will die out. I would expect if evolution were to work that

— aCTa

Changing chromosome numbers must be an "everyday" or at least "everymillenium" part of evolution

— aCTa Sub Quote #1

because closely-"related" animals have different numbers of chromosomes, and these numbers are stable

— aCTa Sub Quote #2

even when you breed different species that can still produce offspring, chromosome numbers will head back to the stable value quickly or the line will die out.

— aCTa Sub Quote #3

Evolution is founded on gradualism - Darwin assumed as much; Dawkins asserts as much. But changes in numbers of chromosomes aren't gradual changes, and no evidence presented so far shows that this is a barrier that evolutionists know how to cross

— aCTa Sub Quote #4

GRRRRRRR! CBS News just posted a poll - 37% of our public want the teaching of evolution replaced with the teaching og creationism (sic) in our public schools. Here.

(CBS) Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools. Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all. There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry's voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.

— CBS

MORALITY, THE MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD On the issues of moral standards in popular culture, voters find common ground. 70% of Americans say they are very or somewhat worried that popular culture, as depicted in television and movies, is lowering moral standards in the U.S. Hollywood takes much of the blame for this, as most say its products are driving down those moral standards. This is a big point of agreement for the two electoral camps: Bush voters overwhelmingly think so, more so than Kerry voters, but half of the latter agree.

— CBS

SAME SEX MARRIAGE Americans also divide on the question of same sex marriage. One in five Americans think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, while another 32% say they should be permitted to form civil unions. 53% of Americans support some type of legal status for same-sex couples, but 44% think the relationships of same-sex couples ought to have no legal recognition.

— CBS

73% of Americans who support some legal status for same-sex relationships say they could vote for a candidate that disagreed with them on the issue of same-sex marriage. However, among those who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions, more than half -- 52% -- say they could not vote for a candidate that held an opposing view on this issue.

— CBS

My disagreement with evolutionists is at the level of underlying worldview, which affects how conclusions are interpreted - but the science is sound enough.

stop living in a dream my dear misguided friend. You have done nothing of the kind, your childish attempts show as much. If you want to play with adults, act like one.

An alternate view is that if specified complexity detects anything at all, it detects the output of simple computational processes. This is consonant with Dembski's claim "It is CSI that within the Chaitin-Kolmogorov-Solomonoff theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible, nonrandom strings of digits" [19, p. 144].

Salvador wrote: I invite Wesley care to quantify thephrase "simple computational process"?

That would be the appendix detailing "Specified Anti-Information".

Dembski's inference of design is then undermined by the recent realization that there are many naturally-occurring tools available to build simple computational processes. To mention just four, consider the recent work on quantum computation [42], DNA computation [47], chemical computing [55, 89, 74], and molecular self assembly [79]. Furthermore, it is now known that even very simple computational models, such as Conway's game of Life [3], Langton's ant [26], and sand piles [33] are universal, and hence compute anything that is computable. Finally, in the cellular automaton model, relatively simple replicators are possible [5].

GWW: I am not Heddle. In fact, I have never heard of him. Without knowing him, I don't know whether to resent the allegation. :-)

Modern science was founded by people whose worldview could be described as "uniformity of natural causes within an open system". I'm sure I don't need to explain that in detail, since this is a very science/phil-literate discussion. In effect, they believed that the universe was open to investigation because it had been created by a good god who was sovereign and in control of the universe, and who had made things in an orderly way. Because the system was "open", they accepted that it was possible that this god might intervene in the universe to do something supernatural. They also believed that they were "free" - in other words, they were not part of the system - the choices and actions that they took were not part of the machinery.

This was the worldview of Newton, Kepler, Copernicus - in fact, the whole of Reformation Europe from about 1600-1750, and probably the whole of Reformation Europe with the exception of France to about 1850. It was also the worldview of some much later scientists, such as Maxwell. Probably also Einstein, come to think of it. I don't think Darwin considered humans to be part of the "system", although he might have been convinced that they had appeared from the system.

This is not the worldview of "modern modern" science, however. Following the Enlightenment, it was assumed (ultimately) that the worldview was "uniformity of natural causes within a closed system." What changes is that the system is closed - everything can be explained by cause and effect without moving outside the system - no supernatural - and it is also closed because we are part of the system.

So whereas "modern" science accepted the possibility of the supernatural, external agencies (and also accepted that science would therefore have limited scope in looking at these issues), "modern modern" science denies this as an option. Everything must be explainable within the system. This is the fundamental difference in worldview that I am talking about.

What effect does this have? It means that the idea of an external agency or external absolute is excluded a priori - because this is the worldview of the scientist. In actual fact, modern modern science doesn't address the issue of whether a God is there - it is simply working on the basis of trying to show how much it can demonstrate without invoking God. At least one philosopher of science has said that this is basically the point of science.

Where it leads to inconsistencies IMHO is that people continue to behave as though things matter. If we are just part of the machine, our consciousness is as well, and regardless of how fascinating the rainbow is, our appreciation of it is just a cosmic accident. I was quite surprised to meet somebody who really had beliefs consistent with this the other day - she commented that she found it comforting to think that we were just an assembly of atoms, and one day we'd simply be disassembled and that was that. But she doesn't live on that basis - she is doing an excellent job of bringing up her children as though they really mattered. It is also relevant that she doesn't have a scientific background - she just likes reading science books written by people who write with the perspective that the system is closed. Or why does it matter to Dawkins what people believe? Why is he so determined in his proclamation that anybody who doesn't believe that we are the product of chance is either stupid, ignorant, mad or evil? If we are the product of chance, then so what if people believe something different?

I also believe that the closed system view doesn't work because it doesn't deal with the evidence. I know the idea of a "multiverse" to escape from anthropicism - but that requires faith in the existence of basically an infinite number of universes - this may be consistent with current science, but since evidence for it is effectively excluded, this would seem to me to be just as much a leap of faith as belief in a creator. Also, the "closed" worldview fails (IMHO) to deal with the fact that we don't feel irrelevant - we assume that there is a difference between good and evil (in short). I know that this can be explained in terms of sociology, game theory and so on - but I think that it only has explanatory power because people would come up with any theory to avoid the conclusion that there is a god.

I know that belief in a sovereign god creates other problems, and I can't discuss them here without getting done the other things I need to do this morning, so I'd better not continue.

I also know (according to Elsberry and others) that there are alternatives - there are Christian evolutionists, for example. However, I'd suggest these perspectives don't constitute the majority, and they are fundamentally attempts by people to hold together two things they see as otherwise mutually contradictory.

Does that answer your question?

aCTa is not Heddle. Based on times of postings and spelling, I'm convinced aCTa is a Brit. (Am I not right, aCTa?)Heddle is American.

Hey, cool detection, Russell! I suppose I could have been Heddle having moved and trying to blend with the natives, or Heddle suffering prolonged jetlag. But no, I am indeed from the UK.

Interesting arguments. Let's see what ID's Bulldog on ARN has to offer in defense.

aCTa,

The difference in worldview you cite between scientists in the 19th century vs. modern scientists can surely be attributed to the overwhelming success science has had in explaining the world in the intervening period. It is not so much that we insist that the world must be a "closed system," as you put it, as it is that we have no evidence that it is not. I don't think most scientists (as well as most of the posters here) would deny the possibility of the supernatural, but in the absence of any reason to think that it plays any kind of role in the world, we choose to ignore it as a potential explanatory factor. It is, quite simply, not a particularly fruitful way of looking at the world.

In actual fact, modern modern science doesn't address the issue of whether a God is there - it is simply working on the basis of trying to show how much it can demonstrate without invoking God. At least one philosopher of science has said that this is basically the point of science.

Yes, exactly. And the reason many of us reject a belief in the supernatural is that we have found that we can get pretty damn far without invoking God, and we have found no cases where we must invoke God. I am an athiest, but I don't insist that God cannot exist. Like Laplace, I just don't see the need for that hypothesis.

I was quite surprised to meet somebody who really had beliefs consistent with this the other day - she commented that she found it comforting to think that we were just an assembly of atoms, and one day we'd simply be disassembled and that was that. But she doesn't live on that basis - she is doing an excellent job of bringing up her children as though they really mattered.

I am surprised by your surprise. I don't understand how it follows that a materialist or even atheist worldview must embrace nihilism. I can quite comfortably believe that "things matter" while denying that God is the source of all meaning. In what way do you imagine she should live and raise her children, given her beliefs?

If we are just part of the machine, our consciousness is as well, and regardless of how fascinating the rainbow is, our appreciation of it is just a cosmic accident.

And your point is...? Are you seriously proposing that rainbows can only be beautiful if God intended them to be so? That all of aesthetics boils down to simply the appreciation of God's handiwork? I really don't see how God has anything to do with whether I find rainbows interesting, beautiful, or what have you. We appreciate rainbows, art, etc. because of the way our brains are structured. Whether God or evolution is ultimately responsible for that structure is, I think, beside the point.

I also believe that the closed system view doesn't work because it doesn't deal with the evidence.

Please enlighten us on exactly what evidence you have in mind. Feelings do not count as evidence (see below).

Also, the "closed" worldview fails (IMHO) to deal with the fact that we don't feel irrelevant - we assume that there is a difference between good and evil (in short). I know that this can be explained in terms of sociology, game theory and so on - but I think that it only has explanatory power because people would come up with any theory to avoid the conclusion that there is a god.

Translation: I don't like the alternatives, so I'll just ignore them. You do realize, I hope, that this statement could just as easily be flipped about to argue that you choose to ignore science because you'll believe anything to avoid the conclusion that there isn't a god?

The Perakh pebble is indeed computationally simple as it can be described by a few parameters. Perakh does a good job explaining this.

Further, the example of the configuration of Head and Tails of the 1000-coin string. In no way is can that be the product of a simple computational process.

I was quite surprised to meet somebody who really had beliefs consistent with this the other day - she commented that she found it comforting to think that we were just an assembly of atoms, and one day we'd simply be disassembled and that was that. But she doesn't live on that basis - she is doing an excellent job of bringing up her children as though they really mattered.

Smokey: The difference of worldviews has nothing to do with the explanatory power of science, and everything to do with the prevailing intellectual consensus. It is worth noting that in philosophy, however, the enlightenment experiment is deemed to have failed. It is no longer thought possible, starting from myself and observations and human reasons, to come to any firm conclusion about the nature of the universe. "Cogito ergo sum" is a dead end - it isn't possible even to establish that there is anybody else in the universe at all other than my own consciousness.

However, "modern modern" science continues on the basis that enlightenment logic works, despite the fact that philosophy has given up on truth derived in that way and moved onto post-modernism. It was interesting hearing Richard Dawkins on "Desert Island Discs" a few years ago; he pretty much asserted an enlightenment logic - but the very next programme basically made the point that philosophy has long since moved on from the enlightenment. I wrote to him asking for his comment on this juxtaposition, but got no response.
***
You seem content to only invoke God "if needed". Of course, you are entirely free to operate on that basis. However, the Bible's attitude to God is that he not only created the universe but he continues to uphold it. God is as present in the things we don't understand as the things we do understand. The "modern modern" science approach seems to think that if it understands how something work then this explains it. That was not the perspective of "modern" science, which accepted that science was a process of "thinking God's thoughts after him" - in other words, understanding the universe wasn't about explaining away God, it was about understanding what God was like.

You may conclude from this that, despite earlier hints of post-modernism, I actually think that "modern" science was going about things the right way. The post-modern mutterings were to try and show the weaknesses of the predominantly "modern modern" attitudes expressed in this forum.
***
I don't think that a real understanding of our nature as expressed in evolutionary terms would necessarily lead to nihilism, but ought logically to lead to indifference. You can't believe that "things matter" and that "we are the product of chance and have no absolute significance" unless your idea of "matter" is very weak, or very relative. Things may matter to you - but does it matter that they matter? Zoodle wurdle, zoodle wurdle, zoodle wurdle. (sorry that was probably a wasted reference)
***
I believe that there are two strands of evidence that most strongly indicate that there is a god, and further I believe that these strands of evidence suggest that the God who claims to have revealed himself in the Bible may well be the God that exists. The first is the existence of human nature, which I think is quantitively different from the nature of anything else in the world. I don't think that the reductionistic analyses of love, anger, personality, morality, the desire for justice, the hope for "something better", aesthetic sense, the ability to organise and rule ... really intellectually deal with the issues. Though I accept that the fact that my worldview (belief in an absolute external being) predisposes me to this position in a way that people who don't share that worldview will not be. I also don't think that the explanations offered by people who don't believe in the concept of an external absolute for the presence in the universe of ... well, the universe itself, for one thing - also life, order, structure, and so on - really deal with the issues. I don't think evolution works, and nothing I have seen in the time I have spent lurking around here makes me believe that anybody has any real idea how life actually came about. I don't think that, "Well, the universe just is" is an adequate explanation, neither do I think that resorting to an infinite number of alternate universes represents a step forward in terms of science from believing that the universe was created by an external absolute.

However, you have to realise that I have said already that this is an issue of worldviews. If somebody is starting from the perspective that they aren't prepared to consider the possibility that there is an external absolute who is concerned with humanity, then nothing I can say to them will make any difference. All I can do is try and explain why I don't think that alternative worldviews stand up. I don't ignore science - I came close to being a research scientist myself - and I do know enough to understand in broad terms research across many different disciplines. However, I simply don't believe that the research that has been carried out has any bearing on my beliefs.

Many people here seem to think that with each paper, the boundary of Christian beliefs must be being pushed back. But if God really did create the universe, and continues to uphold it, then (as is my perspective) every bit of research that is carried out simply enlarges my knowledge of how great he is. That's not ignoring science - that's appreciating it from within a theistic worldview.

Which reminds me, Troll, your answer to my request for a specific list of the dos and don't in your holy book was a dishonest cop-out and you know it. So I will add you to my ever-growing list of Christian arseholes who are happy to belittle others as Biblically uninformed but who refuses to give away the secret list of Biblically specified dos and don'ts which apply to contemporary Christians in the Western world versus Jews in Israel versus ancient Hebrews.

From Luke 10 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

aCTa,

Smokey: The difference of worldviews has nothing to do with the explanatory power of science, and everything to do with the prevailing intellectual consensus.

Hmmm, could it be, perhaps, that the difference in worldviews between now and then might have been effected by the explanatory power of science? That, just maybe, the prevailing intellectual consensus has been informed by the work of scientists in the past century or two?

It is no longer thought possible, starting from myself and observations and human reasons, to come to any firm conclusion about the nature of the universe.

As you say in the UK, bollocks. This is nonsense. And you accuse materialists of nihilism? As you say, we have moved on from the Enlightenment, but I'm sure there are quite a few philosophers, not to mention scientists, who will be somewhat surprised to learn that logic is no longer valid. I'll try to break the news to them gently. It's all PoMo all the way from here on out, eh?

The "modern modern" science approach seems to think that if it understands how something work then this explains it.

Yes, that is a bit silly, isn't it? As if understanding something means that you, er, understand it. I'll make sure I admonish the scientists for this failing when I tell them about the whole logic thing.

That was not the perspective of "modern" science, which accepted that science was a process of "thinking God's thoughts after him" - in other words, understanding the universe wasn't about explaining away God, it was about understanding what God was like.

I believe you are talking about natural philosophy, not science. Modern science evolved (!?) from natural philosophy, true, but they aren't the same thing at all. Natural philosophy was an intellectual program, which you describe fairly well (aside from mislabelling it), whereas science is a methodology.

You may conclude from this that, despite earlier hints of post-modernism, I actually think that "modern" science was going about things the right way. The post-modern mutterings were to try and show the weaknesses of the predominantly "modern modern" attitudes expressed in this forum.

Well, that's certainly a relief. I was afraid for a moment that you were going to start spouting PoMo nonsense in addition to creationist nonsense. Which would, I suppose, make you a "nonsense nonsense" type, probably to counter all the "modern modern" types around here. Glad to hear it isn't so. But wait, I thought it was post-modern philosophy that proved the bankruptness of aspiring to gain knowledge about the world. If you don't truly believe in the PoMo program, then do you concede that it is, in fact, possible to reach firm conclusions about the nature of the universe? And just a minute ago, those benighted Enlightenment types were on a fools errand, now they were going about things the right way? Which is it?

You can't believe that "things matter" and that "we are the product of chance and have no absolute significance" unless your idea of "matter" is very weak, or very relative. Things may matter to you - but does it matter that they matter?

Why should it matter if it matters that they matter? See, I can write nonsensical sentences that seem deep, too! For those of us with no clue what the hell you're talking about, please explain why only God can give my life ultimate meaning. Does He have a monopoly on meaning or something? Did He patent it?

I tried to read that paragraph about why you think there is evidence for the existence of God, but the sheer lack of actual evidence, as opposed to "arguments" of the form "well, I don't think X is an adequate explanation of phenomenon P for some unexplained reason, therefore God" made my head hurt. Care to try again, this time with an actual argument or two? What exactly does it mean to say that "human nature" is "quantitively different from the nature of anything else in the world"(I think you mean qualitatively, but even then it doesn't make much more sense)? If all you mean by human nature is that constellation of features which come along with consciousness, what is it that convinces you that God is necessary to explain them, rather than being epiphenomena of our largish brains? I'm sorry if you think that "reductionist analyses" don't intellectually deal with the issues. As everyone knows, it's far more intellectually rigorous to throw one's hands up in the air and say "I dunno! Must be God that did it!"

Why are we here, what's life all about?
Is God really real, or is there some doubt?
Well tonight, we're going to sort it all out
For tonight it's the Meaning of Life.

And you are right, people don't live on the basis of their metanarrative/worldview.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

you are right, people don't live on the basis of their metanarrative/worldview

All I can do is try and explain why I don't think that alternative worldviews stand up.

You can't believe that "things matter" and that "we are the product of chance and have no absolute significance" unless your idea of "matter" is very weak, or very relative.

I don't ignore science - I came close to being a research scientist myself - and I do know enough to understand in broad terms research across many different disciplines.

I simply don't believe that the research that has been carried out has any bearing on my beliefs.

On a side note does anyone else have the problem where words in the comments on the right side are not displaying? Ie they are there but are not diplaying in the comment box but seeming to slip under the right edge. Since I actually copy posts and have them read via text to speech to me while working this is ok but I notice when following along with the actual comments a word or 2 on each line is lost from visibility.

GWW - are you completely anally retentive?! You just can't leave the subject of fecal matter alone! You should really come up with a more varied range of metaphors.

Let me do just a couple of responses. First GWW:

"Things matter"
"We have no cosmic significance."

What's your problem? How come you can't see that these two statements are fundamentally contradictory? It's not complicated. If we don't ultimately matter, because we are the product of chance and will eventually be no more than a pile of atoms - and I assume from your posts that you would consider that you have a more concerned attitude to humanity than you think I have - then how can anything else?

Also, regarding pre-mod/mod/pomo, whilst I agree that there is a universe that is out there, my basis for belief in this is the pre-mod version - that there is an external absolute, and on the basis of that external absolute (i.e. and not simply because of any absolute truth in my own observations), my observations of the universe correspond to something that is real. The valuable thing about pomo - although I don't accept its conclusion that everything is relative - is that it highlighted the problem with modernism - that if I start from myself, I don't even have enough of a basis to firmly conclude that the rest of the universe is there. You might think that pomo is rubbish - but you might like to ask yourself why if modernism was so good that philosophy didn't stop there (except for scientists :-) ).

Also, am I anti-gay? No, I'm not anti-anyone. I put in another thread (before it got deleted) a short description of the nature of Christian grace - we're all bastards, but God loves us anyway. I haven't met anybody - gay or straight - who deserves God's judgement more than I do, so I'm not the person to condemn others.

I'll be back when I can, promise.

"Things matter" "We have no cosmic significance." What's your problem? How come you can't see that these two statements are fundamentally contradictory?

"Things matter" "We have no cosmic significance." What's your problem? How come you can't see that these two statements are fundamentally contradictory?

The valuable thing about pomo - although I don't accept its conclusion that everything is relative - is that it highlighted the problem with modernism - that if I start from myself, I don't even have enough of a basis to firmly conclude that the rest of the universe is there.

You might think that pomo is rubbish - but you might like to ask yourself why if modernism was so good that philosophy didn't stop there (except for scientists :-) ).

Pomo is a range of things. Some things in it, about knowledge and culture, are I think important. We all know that within pomo there are some extreme people who say stupid things, but I do not think they should not be considered the whole thing.

I fail to see how you can reject the relativistic aspects of post-modernism and yet accept its criticisms of knowledge. Seems a bit . . . convenient.

For the record, I don't think all post-modernism is rubbish, just the overreaching interpretations of it which lead to absurd conclusions such as yours.

aCTa"you are right, people don't live on the basis of their metanarrative/worldview" Hmmmm. If that is the case, then why did you say were "quite surprised" that the woman who believed she was made of atoms cared for her children? Folks, here we see once again a dishonest dissembling Christian creationist in living color.

So aCTa you think that since I give no real weight to there being a need for a god and have no real view of a god, in the sense that you think of a god, is needed for the universe and beyond that I must be an uncaring father?

Here is the difference between you and I. You need a god to make you god by your own words. Without your god you would have no morals. I derive my morals from within. While in the USMC for 6 years I put myself in situations selfishly. Believe me I didn't do it thinking "Hmmm I might get a Navy Cross for this so it might be worth the risk". Even outside the number times I've been hit trying to stop fights are to many to count. Quite a few of them I did not know the parties involved in the fight. If you can't grasp why someone will selfishlessly does something for another without your God being the reason then I feel sad for you that your mind is so small. For, from what you say, you must never really be selfish because you always have in the back of your mind that you need to do something good for your God and not just for the reason it is the right thing to to for yourself.

Wayne,
I have a creationist friend who insisted that without God there was no imperative to "good" or moral or altruistic behaviour, that without Him we would ALL be slavering thugs, rapists and barbarians (poetic license here). This claim has always seemed truly grotesque to me, positing as it does the notion that selfless behaviour must be a product of fear - fear of Divine wrath, fear of the everburning flames of Hell - and cannot be an independently arrived at choice. Needless to say, I too consider that an insult and an affront.

Ack teaches me to do a post when I'm sleepy ....forgive the spelling mistakes

"I don't of course mean to say that all religious people are ignoramuses. All creationists are ignoramuses."

--Richard Dawkins, on Science Friday

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/26/national/26gilkey.html?oref=login

gilkey just died.

Chad Orzel is not all that worried about creationists, for similar reasons to me (though he maybe should be a little more concerned about the 'compromise' position):

http://steelypips.org/principles/2004_11_21_principlearchive.php#110109507301012227

From a Christian perspective, altruistic behaviour isn't dependent upon the fear of hell. It comes about because we continue to reflect the image of our maker. (I assumed "unselfish" behaviour in the USMC rather than selfish!). On the other hand, deriving altruistic behaviour (ultimately) from molecular thermodynamics always struck me as rather stretching the imagination.

Creationist Troll, you should read Darwin's Descent of Man. In chapter five he discusses the rise of morality, and how a social species such as ours cannot survive without morality and altruism. Altruism is a survival advantage, which can be selected for by nature.

Holmes noted that imaginations, once stretched, never return to their same small size. Creationists could use some stretching. Exercise that stuff! Use it or lose it.

aCTa babbled: On the other hand, deriving altruistic behaviour (ultimately) from molecular thermodynamics always struck me as rather stretching the imagination.

1. Is truth something socially/existentially constructed - in which case I can have no certain knowledge that it corresponds to anything that actually "is"? If so, then I have a postmodern world view. 2. Or is truth something that, starting from my own self-awareness, I can be confident of as I observe the universe? If so, then I have a modernist worldview.

3. Or, although I am restricted in my ability to observe the universe and know that my observations are well founded, is truth real because there is an external absolute? If so, then I have a pre-modern worldview. Please note that this worldview has not been discredited, unless the possibility that there is a God is excluded.

What I am saying is that modernism does not have explanatory power unless it can deal with the postmodern critique - which is different from the postmodern conclusions.

What I was trying to get across is the fact that postmodernism asked questions of modernism that it fails to answer - how can a modernist be confident that what he or she observes is true?

It then goes on to propose an alternative - that since we can't know truth - or rather can't know that we can know truth - starting from ourselves, that the only truth is socially constructed or private.

I think you're doing what you're accusing me of doing! I'm not doing what you are saying - I think that pomo asks a valid question of modernism that anybody could have asked - "How can I know truth?" and modernism doesn't have an answer. However, I don't agree with the alternative that postmodernism suggests.

1. Is truth something socially/existentially constructed - in which case I can have no certain knowledge that it corresponds to anything that actually "is"? If so, then I have a postmodern world view. 2. Or is truth something that, starting from my own self-awareness, I can be confident of as I observe the universe? If so, then I have a modernist worldview.

3. Or, although I am restricted in my ability to observe the universe and know that my observations are well founded, is truth real because there is an external absolute? If so, then I have a pre-modern worldview. Please note that this worldview has not been discredited, unless the possibility that there is a God is excluded.

What I am saying is that modernism does not have explanatory power unless it can deal with the postmodern critique - which is different from the postmodern conclusions.

What I was trying to get across is the fact that postmodernism asked questions of modernism that it fails to answer - how can a modernist be confident that what he or she observes is true?

It then goes on to propose an alternative - that since we can't know truth - or rather can't know that we can know truth - starting from ourselves, that the only truth is socially constructed or private.

I think you're doing what you're accusing me of doing! I'm not doing what you are saying - I think that pomo asks a valid question of modernism that anybody could have asked - "How can I know truth?" and modernism doesn't have an answer. However, I don't agree with the alternative that postmodernism suggests.

Doh! Sorry about the extraordinarily long double post. Damn error messages. Anybody with the ability feel like deleting one of them?

What I was surprised about was that, knowing how she cared for her children, she had such a reductionistic view of life. Just because I know that people are inconsistent (in general) doesn't mean that how people (in particular) behave doesn't surprise me.

aCTa,

Do I read too much into your comment when I assume that being in a service branch whose members charge headlong into the face of Death impressed on you the (selfish?) need for cooperation with, and concern for your fellows - whose actions had a direct effect on your own survival? It didn't take that experience for me to come to the same conclusion.

In a hostile and dangerous world, cooperation and common cause enable survival of the species. Even schooling prey fish have come to that conclusion.

So just keep on reflecting the image of your maker and we'll both keep on the right track. In the end, the behaviour's the important thing.

Bob: :-) But I was reflecting on what somebody else had said - I have no such heroics in my past, only a spell as a reservist! (I'd run for president, but I'm not American).

Smokey: in my experience, a lot of the people with a "live for yourself" attitude, which can be a consequence of being told that you have no significance, aren't the sort of people who raise families - they are too busy "having fun" to bother with that sort of thing. Quite often it is when they (accidentally or deliberately) find themselves in possession of offspring that they find themselves caring about things they never expected to be caring about.

I am not disputing scientific laws: I am NOT using pomo to snipe at modernism/rationalism. I am asking the question: "What is the basis for truth for a rationalist? What is the basis for your confidence in the truth of these scientific laws?" - which is a question that ought to have been asked as soon as modernism came along. However, because Christianity was itself buying into the rationalist/enlightenment approach, it stopped behaving as though the important truth was revealed, and started behaving as though truth could be established by the observer - in other words, mainstream Christianity bought into the modernist dream. This WAS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!!!! and the widespread desertion of churches that have "gone liberal" (which basically means buying into rationalism) testifies to this. The question that postmodernism asked "what is the foundation of truth?" was a reasonable and appropriate question. However, the pomo answer - "there is no such thing as truth" is ALSO WRONG.

You say that I am erecting a straw man version of modernism. Fine - what do you propose as a basis for knowledge? You say: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I agree with you. However, I am not talking about the truth (or otherwise) of this. I am talking about the meta-truth of this statement. I would argue that a modernist can't be confident of this, because ultimately "cogito ergo sum" - and no more! He can't even be confident that there is a universe which is real beyond his own mind - his own self as subjective observer. I would argue that because there is an external absolute which created the universe, and we were made in the "image" of this external absolute able to "know", then we can have confidence in the truth of this statement. There are two fantastic essays by a guy called Francis Schaeffer, called "Is Propositional Revelation nonsense?" and "Faith vs 'Faith'", at the end of a book of his called "Escape from Reason", which kind of summarise a philosophical Christian position to this - he writes much better than me.

Incidentally, I would disagree with the third of your scientific assertions. The first two are mathematically provable and experimentally observable; the third is not observable or provable.

The word for a "basis of knowledge" is an "epistemology" - I was racking my brains for it whilst I wrote the last post. If you don't like my suggested modernist epistemology, then propose one that works.

AcTa, I couldn't agree more. Truth comes from believing in the Bible. Only a FOOL would buy the 'Rationalist' idea that it comes from experiment. What's that ever gotten us? You are very correct to point out that liberal christians have subordinated their faith to this cult of 'reason'. In doing so, they implicitly acknowledge that faith is an inferior epistemology. But faith should not hide in the gaps of scientific knowledge. Since faith is a valid method of knowing, it should stand up against science and demand allegiance. Too bad more people don't escape from reason.

Regarding the Nov. 12 article "Evolution wrangle humiliating to some": How about that? Some people are humiliated over the wrangle about evolution. Well, so what? I am not a scientist. But in my own mind, I see a glaring flaw in the case for evolution. Somewhere in the millions-of-years timeline, the very first creature had to be born (or hatched) that could be classified as a mammal. Were its parents non-mammal? Wouldn't that be weird? That means that a mother of one classification gave birth to another type of classification. Is that possible? It doesn't seem likely to me. A second alternative is that the mother gave birth to her own kind, but her offspring grew up to become something else. Wouldn't that also be weird? That would mean the evolution of a species occurred within one lifetime. Is that possible? That doesn't seem likely to me either. I think there is a third alternative that isn't weird at all. And it requires far less faith to believe than the faith required to believe either of the first two. Want to guess what it is? F. Benton Ham Raleigh

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

sexually active gay folks are gwine up to heaven as long as they love their neighbor and God.

Would you enjoy being told that because of your religious beliefs your life's work is a complete waste? Is that the sort of behavior that Jesus was promoting when he said "love your neighbor as thyself?"

Smokey: in my experience, a lot of the people with a "live for yourself" attitude, which can be a consequence of being told that you have no significance, aren't the sort of people who raise families - they are too busy "having fun" to bother with that sort of thing. Quite often it is when they (accidentally or deliberately) find themselves in possession of offspring that they find themselves caring about things they never expected to be caring about.

— aCTa

steve:

Unfortunately, the rather hilarious misconceptions of evolution in the letter you quoted describe pretty much the average American's total understanding of the process. They "know" that new "kinds" appeared all at once and nothing first. They can't imagine how this could happen naturally, therefore evolution couldn't have happened. If the process *requires* magic, then ipso facto it was magical. What could be simpler?

I especially love the part about "I'm not a scientist, but I see a glaring flaw." Do you suppose this person never wonders how so many professionals in the field could have missed such a glaring flaw for so many decades? I wonder if he has dichotomized this as well: Since every scientist has to be stupid to miss this flaw, this must mean either it's stupid to become a scientist, or that science makes you stupid. Has to be one or the other, doesn't it?

Honestly, Flint, I'm a little bored with the creationists' preoccupation with biology. I hope that soon they branch out and tell me what's wrong with quantum physics, optics, and organic chemistry, subjects in which they are just as expert as biology. After all, we must be dealing with world-class geniuses here, people who with just a little recreational reading can overthrow the established scientific framework. As a lesser mortal, I await their enlightenment.

Like I await the mathematical proof that evolution can't happen. Pasquale promised it about a month ago, but subsequently doesn't seem to be around much. Maybe he and Dembski worked together and are now busy rechecking their proof, before mailing it off to Nature, or Acta Mathematica.

Would you enjoy being told that because of your religious beliefs your life's work is a complete waste? Is that the sort of behavior that Jesus was promoting when he said "love your neighbor as thyself?"

Wayne: I am not saying, and have not said, that "atheists are immoral, theists are moral". What I am saying (in more technical terms, now) is that what remains of our morality is actually common grace. We are moral because of the image of God that we were made in, and God is moral.

I see you understand how scandalous the gospel is - that "a real sinner can be forgiven". What you don't understand yet, is that we are all "real sinners" - that from God's perspective, you and I might as well be mass murderers, because the real nature of sin isn't what we do to other creatures, but what we do to our creator. This was why Jesus ended up arguing with the Pharisees so much - they could see that there was a problem with sin - they just couldn't see that it applied to them. And there are lots of people in churches even today who think they are much better than the "sinners". So you're in pretty sound religious territory.

Also, I know that there is a problem in knowing what to believe in a pluralistic world. All I can say about that is that I have had a good solid education - both "secular" and theological, and I find what I believe to be intellectually coherent; the evidence is there for you to decide for yourself whether Jesus was who he claimed to be (God's chosen king to rule over everybody, everywhere, for ever).

(P.S. Why was U S C O M rejected??)

Smokey: in my experience, a lot of the people with a "live for yourself" attitude, which can be a consequence of being told that you have no significance, aren't the sort of people who raise families - they are too busy "having fun" to bother with that sort of thing. Quite often it is when they (accidentally or deliberately) find themselves in possession of offspring that they find themselves caring about things they never expected to be caring about.

I am NOT using pomo to snipe at modernism/rationalism.

I am asking the question: "What is the basis for truth for a rationalist? What is the basis for your confidence in the truth of these scientific laws?" - which is a question that ought to have been asked as soon as modernism came along.

However, I am not talking about the truth (or otherwise) of this. I am talking about the meta-truth of this statement. I would argue that a modernist can't be confident of this, because ultimately "cogito ergo sum" - and no more!

Incidentally, I would disagree with the third of your scientific assertions. The first two are mathematically provable and experimentally observable; the third is not observable or provable.

If you don't like my suggested modernist epistemology, then propose one that works.

But how do we know that mathematics is true? What is the basis for your confidence in the first two, other than your acceptance of a rationalist epistemology?

I didn't admit that ID was a load of hooey.

I'm going to get on my magic carpet and fly far away from this discussion. According to my premodern epistemology, my carpet should travel well in excess of mach 4.

1. Rationalist epistemology doesn't work, it can't even prove that the universe exists.

1b. But the rationalist ultimately can have no confidence in the truth of his observations, because he can have no certainty even that there is actually a real universe that he is able to observe, because he is a subjective observer.

1f. These are real philosophical issues. Whilst science has accepted that rationalism is OK as a foundation for carrying out experiments, philosophy has critiqued and discarded it as not offering a sound epistemology.

3. Pre-modern epistemology does work, if you accept the premise that there is an external absolute.

CT,

I appologize. I just accidentally delete one of your comments in this thread.

Do you really think that, if they seriously believe that there is a God, and that God's judgment awaits people who continue to reject him, that it would be loving of them to not to try and persuade you that evolution hasn't done away with the need for God?

Wayne: I am not saying, and have not said, that "atheists are immoral, theists are moral". What I am saying (in more technical terms, now) is that what remains of our morality is actually common grace. We are moral because of the image of God that we were made in, and God is moral.

— aCTa

What I was surprised about was that, knowing how she cared for her children, she had such a reductionistic view of life.

— aCTa

but I haven't been told how new specified proteins might appear, or how changes in chromosome numbers might be such a regular feature of evolution when they are so strongly selected against etc.

— aCTa

aCTa,

I have no problem accepting what you believe, but I have major problems with your seeming belief that the rest of us should also believe. God is moral? Give me a break - go back and read the Old Testament. He's a monster at worst, and a cosmic trickster at best.

As I said earlier, if you continue to behave altruistically in the belief that you're reflecting the image of your creator, and I continue to behave altruistically because it's the only sensible behaviour, we're working together. It might be a good idea to leave it at that.

Smokey: in my experience, a lot of the people with a "live for yourself" attitude, which can be a consequence of being told that you have no significance, aren't the sort of people who raise families - they are too busy "having fun" to bother with that sort of thing. Quite often it is when they (accidentally or deliberately) find themselves in possession of offspring that they find themselves caring about things they never expected to be caring about.

— aCTa

Umm, Wayne? I think Joseph was Mary's husband....

Just a minor point.

:/ ooops so your right :/ thanks for the correction

KENT, Washington (AP) -- A man who placed a lava lamp on a hot stovetop was killed when it exploded and sent a shard of glass into his heart, police said. Philip Quinn, 24, was found dead in his trailer home Sunday night by his parents. "Why on earth he was heating a lava lamp on the stove, we don't know," Kent Police spokesman Paul Petersen said Monday.

KENT, Washington (AP) -- A man who placed a lava lamp on a hot stovetop was killed when it exploded and sent a shard of glass into his heart, police said. Philip Quinn, 24, was found dead in his trailer home Sunday night by his parents. "Why on earth he was heating a lava lamp on the stove, we don't know," Kent Police spokesman Paul Petersen said Monday.

I only hope he hadn't bred first, or that would be one in the eye for natural selection as a theory. :-o

Sorry, that's a bit graceless, isn't it?

CTa,

There is always something to be said concerning the need for at least occasional cleansing of the gene pool. :^)

Even fewer people in th UK will be aware of the millions and millions of Soviet citizens who were done to death in the name of Marxist theories of equality. Probably twice as many as the victims of Nazi policies.

The killing of millions of Chinese by their own Government in the name of Communism is conveniently ignored by apologists.

Pol Pot ordered the killing of 33% of the population of Cambodia. Remind me!! Wasn't he a Communist?

I was under the impression that more people had been killed in the name of God than had ever died under Communist regimes, so I guess that makes Christianity even worse than Communism, now doesn't it? After all, there's a "christie" under every bed....

Or maybe there's just something wrong with the logic of the fundamental argument.

After I posted the ridiculous quote that Dembski is "The Isaac Newton of Information Theory", I got the following email. I have received permission to post it here. Enjoy.

Subject: Panda's thumb quote
From: "Anand Sarwate"
Date: Tue, November 30, 2004 5:59 pm
To: "Steve Story"
Priority: Normal
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | View Message details | Bounce

Do you have a reference for your quote about how Dembski is the
Isaac Newton of Information Theory?

I'm a grad student working on information theory and that was pretty
ridiculous. I wanted to send it to my research group for laughs...

Anand Sarwate
asarwate@eecs.berkeley.edu
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~asarwate/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/

Go, get 'em!

It oversimplifies things to say that it was communism that was responsible for all these deaths; it would be better to talk in terms of humanism. Then you can add to it the fascist regimes of last century in Germany, Spain and Italy, plus those more recently in South America. And the death toll in the last century from humanist regimes was far worse probably than the cumulative death toll from religious violence throughout the rest of history.

Somebody may cycle out the tired quotes to show that Hitler believed himself to be "Christian". That was just a label he used to make himself acceptable to more people.

Religion, and Christianity, certainly has had its own share of violence - the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burning, the conflict in Ulster/NI. However, these didn't represent Bible-based Christianity - you can't say that the Jesus of the Bible would have endorsed any of them. They were generally to do with power.

There is also the issue of the God of the Bible wiping out virtually the whole biosphere with a flood, and carrying out ethnic cleansing against nations through his people, which people will doubtless raise....

aCTa,

Of course they'll be raised, as will - when some of your brethren wax ecstatic over the "Glories of God's Handiwork" - the questionable glories of Ebola, SARS, HIV, Downs, etc. Let's not cherrypick when giving credit where it's due.

FIFTH: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased. ... SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. EIGHTH: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels --- social, political, and economic. All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives. Institutions should be responsive to expressed desires and needs. The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.

Sorry, I was not sufficiently specific. I was using humanism not in the formal philosophical sense, but in the sense of a general worldview that starts from the perspective that there is nothing higher than human beings - that people are only accountable to themselves (and the state is an extension of this). Marxism is humanistic not because it derives from the Humanist Manifesto but because at its core is the imposition of a new ruling working class. Fascism (in the general sense) is humanistic because it has as its highest good the power of a particular group of people.

However, I'm personally not convinced that, despite the high values that formal humanism proclaims, it has a great deal to show for itself. From a Christian perspective, I would argue that the Tower of Babel was the ultimate humanist enterprise - which God deliberately confounded.

I think it is interesting that the humanist manifesto offers euthanasia, whereas Christians throughout the world (though not all of them) consider part of their Christian service working for people who are affected by HIV, Downs, terminal illness etc.

Steve Benson has a nice editorial cartoon that can be seen here:

http://www.comics.com/editoons/benson/archive/benson-20041207.html

That Benson cartoon is awesome. It's as good, as blaming Hitler on Humanism is fucking stupid.

Fascism (in the general sense) is humanistic because it has as its highest good the power of a particular group of people.

However, I'm personally not convinced that, despite the high values that formal humanism proclaims, it has a great deal to show for itself.

Do you guys know about CafePress? They let you make t-shirts, coffee mugs, mousepads etcetera using logos or designs you provide; I'd buy a mug and I'm sure others would too. You could donate the proceeds to NCSE, or buy yourselves a beer for that matter. Keep up the good work.

OESE is a non-profit educational organization that promotes the education of the public about the methods and values of science and advocates excellence in the science curriculum. The formation of OESE was prompted by the attempts in the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee in 1999 and in the Oklahoma Legislature each year since to diminish the teaching of evolution by the introduction of creationist textbook disclaimers to be inserted into any textbook used in public schools that discussed evolution

Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education to fight evolution deniers? If that's what the aim is, then what's the matter with just saying what you aim to do in your name, rather than implying that you have a wider brief? Like "Oklahomans against evolution deniers"? I suppose it's just like NCSE, really, isn't it? After all, the creationists are such a dissembling lot - you need to be just as dishonest if you want to win arguments with them, don't you?

Earlier, I wasn't advocating a theocracy. What I am saying is that any government which starts by having a high view of humans and their power ends up as totalitarian. Democracy doesn't work because it ensures that the majority get their way - it works (or at least should work!) by preventing extremists from taking power. That's why Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst political system - apart from all the others."

So what sort of political system am I advocating, as a Christian? Well, none, really; Christianity doesn't (or shouldn't) have a political agenda. It teaches people to live lawful lives as far as they are able; and it teaches Christians in authority to seek to use that authority justly. It also teaches that "from one man, God made every nation so that they would seek him and perhaps find him" - in other words, the nations are ultimately in God's hands (although people are responsible for the way in which they use their abilities and position). It teaches that the ultimate end of the universe is that one day, everybody will accept that Jesus is God's chosen king to rule over everybody, everywhere, forever - the ultimate theocracy - and that the model of that eschatological order is (or should be) the local church.

Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education to fight evolution deniers? If that's what the aim is, then what's the matter with just saying what you aim to do in your name, rather than implying that you have a wider brief? Like "Oklahomans against evolution deniers"? "Oklahomans against Creationists"? I suppose it's just like NCSE, really, isn't it? After all, the creationists are such a dissembling lot - you have to be dishonest to win arguments with them, don't you? :-P

Earlier, I wasn't advocating a theocracy. What I am saying is that any government which starts by having a high view of humans and their power ends up as totalitarian. Democracy doesn't work because it ensures that the majority get their way - it works (or at least should work!) by preventing extremists from taking power. That's why Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst political system - apart from all the others."

So what sort of political system am I advocating, as a Christian? Well, none, really; Christianity as an entity doesn't (or shouldn't) have a political agenda. It teaches people to live lawful lives as far as they are able; and it teaches Christians in authority to seek to use that authority justly. It also teaches that "from one man, God made every nation so that they would seek him and perhaps find him" - in other words, the nations are ultimately in God's hands, and exist for his purposes (although people are responsible for the way in which they use their abilities and position). It teaches that the ultimate end of the universe is that one day, everybody will accept that Jesus is God's chosen king to rule over everybody, everywhere, forever - the ultimate theocracy - and that the model of that eschatological order is (or should be) the local church, not the nation or para-church organisations.

With regard to euthanasia, however well-intentioned the humanist manifesto is, the fact is that once even the removal of care becomes an option, there is a danger that it will rapidly become an expectation, and then a pressure - there was an article in the Times the other day about a disabled woman who was ill in intensive care, with every expectation of getting better, but to whom it was suggested on separate occasions by separate doctors that, if she stopped breathing, she might not wish to be revived.

Incidentally, there were many things that were in the humanist manifesto that I have no problem with. For example, the fact that people are more important than rules; the importance of "local government" and so on.

Earlier, I wasn't advocating a theocracy. What I am saying is that any government which starts by having a high view of humans and their power ends up as totalitarian.

Smokey you nailed it. I didn't understand this topic until I read an essay similar to yours by Cathy Young. The fact is, you can subvert human rights in pursuit of a variety of ideologies. And in the end, the horrors of totalitarianism and theocracy and such are measured by how far they diverge from good, humanistic values.

The "good, humanistic" values that you espouse are the ones that you borrowed from the Bible, in many cases. The difference is that - sorry, we're back here again - you're using them without an epistemological foundation.

Are many first-world nations heading towards totalitarianism? Yes, I'd argue they probably are. We are within a couple of decades of criminalising many religiou s communities - and probably many of the people here would assent with this criminalisation!!! - over issues like: should a religiou s community be able to choose not to employ somebody on grounds of their morality? Which leads to: should religiou s communities be licensed? We all have to have child protection policies; we all have to do police checks before employing people - or even allowing them to do voluntary work. Now the thing is, these things aren't inherently wrong - but just think for a minute! Can't you see how much freedom has been taken away from you, "for your own good"? And we have all just accepted it!! You don't have to be terribly enlightened to see what has happened in the States under the doublethink label of the "Patriot Act" is extremely worrying - and again, most people think it is a good thing!

What about the media? The "totalitarian" authorities aren't just those in parliaments - they are the people who control channels of communication. Have you heard what was going to happen to "Stupid White Men" as a book shortly before some librarians got to hear about it? The channels of free expression are still there - but for how much longer?

Remember that totalitarian states rarely oppress the majority. They rule with the consent of the majority - and oppress the minority. You may be happy with that - you may be in the majority. But if in twenty years' time you find yourself wondering where exactly your free society went, you might want to remember what you read here.

Oddly enough, I think that blogging (a highly individualistic pursuit) is one of the latest tools that we have to escape from authoritarianism.

To go back to humanist values, again, my Grandpa was a socialist who fought against fascism, and ended up exiled from his home country for many years in the twentieth century - a far more direct experience of realpolitik than anybody on this forum (me included) is ever likely to have, fortunately. He used to say to dad: "Marx said, 'If you won't work, you shouldn't eat.'" Dad pointed out to him: "Yes, but the Bible said that first."

You may be wondering why a space regularly features in a phrase in that post. I am wondering why Yew Ess Space See Oh Emm should be regarded as questionable content. But there you go.

We are within a couple of decades of criminalising many religiou s communities

The "good, humanistic" values that you espouse are the ones that you borrowed from the Bible, in many cases.

Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind has built a dinosaur-filled theme park in the Florida panhandle and claims to prove that evolution is bunk. A visit there shows that it is definitely a fantasy land.

Don't forget Marshall Hall at fixedearth.com -> evolution denial + rotating/orbiting earth denial.

apparently he's got a time machine too, because at the very bottom it says
"©1997-2005 Marshall Hall"

The "good, humanistic" values that you espouse are the ones that you borrowed from the Bible, in many cases. The difference is that - sorry, we're back here again - you're using them without an epistemological foundation.

"We are within a couple of decades of criminalising many religiou s communities"

hould a religiou s community be able to choose not to employ somebody on grounds of their morality?