Darwin's Influence

[MannyPaquio]

Whether you are of the christian faith, a different faith, or no faith at all, take the time to read about Padre Pio's life. The testimonies people have given of Padre's ability to heal them through the power of prayer are remarkable:

http://www.padrepio.com/

[littlechild]

Evolution "only becomes impossible" because he mistakenly concludes there have been mutation events in the history of evolution with a random increase in information content greater than 500 bits. As of right now, there is no research or data, comming out of Dembski to support that that claim that can be evaluated and tested. You'll also see that Dembski fully agrees that increases in information of less than 500 bits can and often do arise by chance.

There is a reason why his Law of Conservation of Information will never find acceptance in academic circles and it has nothing to do with "Materialist" bias. If you'll flip to pages 162-63, you'll see his explanation comes up something like this...

I(Y&X) <= I(Y)+500

Thats not even a conservation is any sense of the word, much less a mathematical law. Thats just limit with a rather arbitrary number added in.

If you wish ID to be taken seriously, I suggest you find other sources.

CFR please. Where does Dembski conclude this? And why can't it be evaluated or tested, and what does that have to do with my previous post, in other words, how does that refute anything I have stated?

Perhaps you missed the crucial piece here:

The number 500, conceived as a universal complexity bound, is in principle revisable whereas the Law of Conservation of Information, when state in relation to the appropriate universal complexity bound, is not (following as it does strictly on mathematical grounds)> For now, however, we are justified treating UCB as equal to 500.

I find it interesting that you try to dismiss the entire mathematical framework on such paltry grounds, in order to prop up something far less tenable, the theory of common descent and natural selection.But that is a choice I think everyone should make for themselves.

At any rate, maybe you should have a look at page 149 - wherein he mentions that the laws of mathematics concerning CSI are incapable of explaining the origin of CSI. The math only describes the flow of information - nothing yet, particularly not evolution, can explain its origin, which as we have already mentioned, can only have come from an intelligent source.

But clearly having a rough estimate is better than the wildly speculative imaginings of the non-mathematical crowd these last 150 years.

[changed]

ID is not the only alternative to Darwin.

I would like to see panspermia taught

http://panspermia.org/

How about teaching "survival of the nicest" rather than fittest?

read this: http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/902.html

this is fun:

Darwin v. Design public debates took an interesting turn in 2008 as atheists and agnostics took up the torch for ID and Christians went to bat for Darwin. This surprising role reversal was most evident at a November 7 debate in Texas where agnostic Dr. David Berlinski, a well-know skeptic of Darwinism, and Dr. Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher of physics both defended intelligent design while theistic evolutionist Dr. Denis Alexander, a biochemist and editor of Science & Christian Belief, and well-known atheist and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss defended evolution . . . Another example of this trend was . . . philosopher and sociologist Steve Fuller's defense of ID in his newest book Dissent over Descent and the ensuing public debate about the book in the online pages of the New Humanist. Meanwhile atheist New York University Law professor Thomas Nagel authors an article defending the constitutionality of teaching ID.[4]

http://epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=66&mode=detail

It seems Christians are trying to prove themselves "scientists" by accepting Darwinism, while Atheists are OK with showing the faults in it

[Mordecai]

Perhaps you missed the crucial piece here:

The number 500, conceived as a universal complexity bound, is in principle revisable whereas the Law of Conservation of Information, when state in relation to the appropriate universal complexity bound, is not (following as it does strictly on mathematical grounds)> For now, however, we are justified treating UCB as equal to 500.

I find it interesting that you try to dismiss the entire mathematical framework on such paltry grounds...

I haven't even read that book, but I almost responded with something like what you are saying (seeing as I understand Dembski's work from some of his other writings). Like it matters that there is a rough mathematical estimate, when that estimate works in practice, i.e. in the real world. It proves the point more than sufficiently well.

[3ToedSloth]

Wow...

Perhaps you missed the crucial piece here:

The number 500, conceived as a universal complexity bound, is in principle revisable whereas the Law of Conservation of Information, when state in relation to the appropriate universal complexity bound, is not (following as it does strictly on mathematical grounds)> For now, however, we are justified treating UCB as equal to 500.

I find it interesting that you try to dismiss the entire mathematical framework on such paltry grounds, in order to prop up something far less tenable, the theory of common descent and natural selection.But that is a choice I think everyone should make for themselves.

I want to forget everything else for now and focus in on this. What you just stated quickly gets to the heart of the matter and Littlechild, I'm going to do you a favor and help you win the Fields Medal.

Dembski sets his Univeral Probability Bound to be 1 in 10^150 and he bases this of a statistical inference developed by R. A. Fisher. Fisher's models suffer from some serious flaws and be universally rejected because no one has been able to provide a rational base for their subjective variables. See here...

The force of a test of significance, Fisher then claimed, "is logically that of the simple disjunction: Either an exceptionally rare chance has occurred, or the theory of random distribution [i.e., the null hypothesis] is not true" (Fisher, 1956, p. 39). But in thus avoiding an unreasonably strong interpretation, Fisher plumped for one that is unhelpfully weak, for the significant or critical results in a test of significance are by definition improbable, relative to the null hypothesis. Inevitably, therefore, the occurrence of a significant result is either a 'rare chance' (an improbable event) or the null hypothesis is false, or both. And Fisher's claim amounts to nothing more than this necessary truth. It certainly does not allow one to infer the truth or falsity of any statistical hypothesis from a particular result. (Hacking, 1965, p. 81, has made the same point.)

Expositions of Fisherian significance tests typically vacillate over the nature of the conclusions that such tests entitle one to draw. For example, Cram

[3ToedSloth]

I haven't even read that book,

[3ToedSloth]

ID is not the only alternative to Darwin.

I would like to see panspermia taught

http://panspermia.org/

How about teaching "survival of the nicest" rather than fittest?

read this: http://news-info.wus...normal/902.html

this is fun:

http://epsociety.org...=66&mode=detail

It seems Christians are trying to prove themselves "scientists" by accepting Darwinism, while Atheists are OK with showing the faults in it

Panspermia would be an alternative to Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Since you also mention Bradley Morton, he offers a pretty harsh run down on Dembski here...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003997/

[3ToedSloth]

And for anyone who is following this, Here are a couple articles from a Christian Philosopher at Nortre Dame, who joins in on to the routine supression of Dembki's Truth.

http://edisk.fandm.edu/michael.murray/Dembski.pdf

http://edisk.fandm.edu/michael.murray/Providence.pdf

[littlechild]

Wow...

I want to forget everything else for now and focus in on this. What you just stated quickly gets to the heart of the matter and Littlechild, I'm going to do you a favor and help you win the Fields Medal.

Dembski sets his Univeral Probability Bound to be 1 in 10^150 and he bases this of a statistical inference developed by R. A. Fisher. Fisher's models suffer from some serious flaws and be universally rejected because no one has been able to provide a rational base for their subjective variables. See here...

From : Howson & Urbach, Scientific Reasoning, pp. 179-18

Dembski is attempting to do what no other statisticians has been able to do, and that is give Fisher's a rational base to work from. To accomplish such a feat would render a person renowned in the field. How does Dembski do it?

NFL page 79.

Which can be watered down into this...

1. Saturated probability for event A is less than 1/2

2. We should not expect event A to happen.

3. Event A happens.

4. Event A happening shows an inconsistencey

5. To fix the inconsistencey, we need to scrap the orginal saturated probability and rework it so the probability allows event A to happen

If you doubt this 5 step process, you need to open up his The Design Inference to page 193 and read to 198. I should not have to point out how this is a non sequitur and that, much to some people's dismay, improbable events do indeed happen and this is not a good reason to revise an entire hypothesis.

So, if you can explain what solid rational basis he has for his version of the Fisher's models, you should pat yourself on the back! And quickly send your reply off to the respected journals so that you can reap the much deserved rewards.

Oh, I get it, you can't find a defense of evolution, and so you take a few wild swings at its alternatives. If nothing else, you provide ample evidence for the very thesis this thread is based on, that alternatives to evolution should be discussed and encouraged in public school.

The fact that a very small number of improbable events could possibly occur is not in dispute. But evolution depends upon far far more than that, and Dembski more than abundantly makes that clear. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, but that is YOUR problem, not mine. If you dispute the numbers, then YOU come up with better ones. It so happens that the ones chosen are unusually GENEROUS, just for the sake of the argument. And THAT IS THE VERY POINT. It is extremely likely that the numbers should be even more parsimonious, but if you think otherwise, then let's see why you think so. If its because you have to show at any cost that evolution is a fact, then I say, you have an agenda. There isn't enough time in the universe for life to spontaneously self generate, that's the point. The burden of proof is on those who believe there was. It's up to Dembski and other mathematicians to determine likelihood, and he is the best one to assess that, thus far.

Keep your meaningless awards for those who think it makes them superior people.

[littlechild]

Panspermia would be an alternative to Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Since you also mention Bradley Morton, he offers a pretty harsh run down on Dembski here...

http://philsci-archi...chive/00003997/

So what is it then, that priveleges evolution in the classroom, when it doesn't cover abiogenesis? It is merely the clout of scientists who are themselves subject to inaccuracy, false conclusions, and peer pressure.Darwinists see their house of cards crumbling around them, and it makes them insanely jealous and infuriated. They will say and do anything to preserve their monopoly.

But they still can't turn lead into gold, nor can they show any legitimate developmental pathways for common descent, nor can they measure or quantify the effect of "natural selection" or show any mathematically sound basis for their conclusions.

[littlechild]

Mordecai said,

I haven't even read that book,

By the way, Mr Sloth, how many paragraphs of Dembski's work have YOU read, besides the 3 you (so inadequately) criticize?

[3ToedSloth]

So I take it, you don't want to justify a rational basis for Fisher's models?

[DH]

First of all, as I understand it, "Darwinism" is a term that applies only in the biological sciences.

And second, so far Darwinism seems to be the best explanation of how life developed. If we make new discoveries and/or come up with a theory that better explains the evidence we have than does Darwinism, then of course that should be taught in (biology) classes instead. But until then... no.

DH

[noob123]

Do ID proponents have issue with those that have a Theistic Evolution viewpoint?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

[Rob Osborn]

Do ID proponents have issue with those that have a Theistic Evolution viewpoint?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

All ID claims is that there is both direction and guidance by an intelliegnt cause/agent, especially when it comes to how life originated. Therefore, Theistic evolution is Intelligent Design. Theistic evolutionists however do not claim to be in the same camp as ID'ers because in reality they believe in Darwinian evolution devoid of any intelligent cause. Theistic evolutionists are just your basic Darwinian evolutionists who also happen to believe in God. Theistis evolution in my opinion is a contradiction of words. It's like saying a person is a creationist evolutionist or even- an intelligent design evolutionist. The real truth as you can see is that it is totally political.

[Mordecai]

Do ID proponents have issue with those that have a Theistic Evolution viewpoint?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I think ID is as good an explanation as Darwinism... well, perhaps better, seeing as the emergence of knowledge at the microbiological level is killing any hope Darwinists had of extrapolating the mutations they've observed into an explanation for macroevolution. Things look pretty bad from that standpoint. Statistically, Darwinism doesn't appear viable anymore, and ID makes pretty good logical sense and has some objective evidence and reasoning. I do very much have an issue with Theistic Evolution, because Darwinian processes are a weak explanation for macroevolution. Not so much because I think ID is fantastic. It's just that Darwinism is pathetic for explaining macroevolution.

[3ToedSloth]

Do ID proponents have issue with those that have a Theistic Evolution viewpoint?

http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

Intelligent Design is mostly a poltical movement. Since I was on the topic of Dembski, take a look at his rigorous course requirements at at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary...

This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you

[cdowis]

Intelligent Design is mostly a poltical movement.

Many aspects of science have entered into the realm of politics for one simple reason -- money, federal grants. They are competing for the same grant money.

Evolutionist science is steeped in internal politics -- peer review process, tenure, grant money. That is the nature of science today. Do you honestly think that a person who has built his entire career around evolution is going to give an IDer the time of day. They are going to protect their territory, as demonstrated by the recent scandal, in case you are not up on current events.

[littlechild]

Intelligent Design is mostly a poltical movement. Since I was on the topic of Dembski, take a look at his rigorous course requirements at at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary...

You can't make this stuff up. Trolling internet sites for debates over ID? As part of college coursework?

I wonder if someone in this thread is working on their Master's degree?

As hilarious as all this is, it still saddens me because it is real. This is why the I.D movement has to try and bombard local school boards as opposed to actually proving anything to the scientific community. You'll get grandous speeches about the downfall of Darwinian Evolution, that it's been defeated and dead BUT there is a grand world conspiracy of evil materialist who have managed to hoodwink the entire world for a little while , but the truth is getting out there! One angry and unwarranted self important post at a time!

What would be the motives of someone who doesn't answer direct questions (i.e., how many paragraphs of Dembski have you read beside the 3 you so inadequately criticize) ?

What could be the motive of someone who then attempts to redirect the debate to a course taught at a University in an effort to discredit a book written by the professor?

Why would someone attempt to position the argument as (the entire scientific community) versus (one poor misguided mathematics professor)?

Why would someone attempt to belittle the opposition rather than engage in a discussion on the merits of the proferred argument?

Why would someone not respond to the challenge of coming up with a "more reasonable" set of numbers than the one Dembski uses?

And lastly, why hasn't the pro-Darwin community ever mathematically quantified the biological developmental pathways necessary to produce life, OR, to produce one species from another, OR, even come up with a coherent, credible, Darwinian tree of life? If the theory is robust, accurate, and true, then why are there literally millions of Darwinian trees, and there is no consensus about any one tree? Why are there computer programs, (all of them intelligently designed), which can generate a new Darwinian tree based upon the assumptions input to it by the researcher?

IF this is settled science, superior to Intelligent Design, why can't it be quantified and proven as such? Why is there still controversy? Why have biologists not come up with a workable, provable, tangible demonstration of their suppositions? And why do so-called scientists, not rise to the challenge and come up with objective answers, not motivated by agendas, politics, and money, and prove their biological models plausible and practical? Why do so-called scientists seek to drown out their opponents with force of law rather than force of correct ideas? Why do they flee from controversy and the innovation of new perspectives? That's how real science progresses, and how it will continue to progress. It does no one any good to proclaim a monopoly on the truth and an unchanging infallibility.

What we have here, are a group of "wise men", alchemists, believers in magic, who despise a mathematical proof of their misguided faith.

[littlechild]

Many aspects of science have entered into the realm of politics for one simple reason -- money, federal grants. They are competing for the same grant money.

Evolutionist science is steeped in internal politics -- peer review process, tenure, grant money. That is the nature of science today. Do you honestly think that a person who has built his entire career around evolution is going to give an IDer the time of day. They are going to protect their territory, as demonstrated by the recent scandal, in case you are not up on current events.

Right now scores of Darwinists are likely combing through their past emails, deleting any 'incorrect' communications, and you can rest assured that in the future there will be further controls on electronic missives. Anyone not toeing the Darwinian line is already pilloried and blackballed, it will only get worse.

And as for mathematical models, we will probably see some charlatanisms there too - Dawkins already tried it with "Scaling Mount Improbable" but failed miserably, but maybe they will drum some quasi-credible mathematician to put out the propaganda that "Oh see, evolution was likely after all, in fact, it was mathematically inevitable!". Of course it won't really pass muster with real mathematicians, but there may be some mileage to be gained amongst the less informed masses. Eventually though, I think the truth will prevail.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you honestly think that a person who has built his entire career around evolution is going to give an IDer the time of day. They are going to protect their territory, as demonstrated by the recent scandal, in case you are not up on current events.

THis is a darn shame too. I have a hard time trusting some of what science does in light of the recent fiasco. It really bothers me too. I suppose in time I will learn to trust some things once again.

[3ToedSloth]

Many aspects of science have entered into the realm of politics for one simple reason -- money, federal grants. They are competing for the same grant money.

Any setting with a heirarchy of humans is going to be steeped in internal politics, but you missed my point, ID doesn't have a scientific case, there isn't anything there regarding even a coherent theory. Thats why they keep attacking science education and getting their butts handed back to them. This is why they go after school boards in places like Kansas and Texas, where they can sneak in some kind of victory.

So instead of trying to convince any Academic population, they are gonna gun for laymen and try and force themselves via a voting block.

Evolutionist science is steeped in internal politics -- peer review process, tenure, grant money. That is the nature of science today.

Thats the nature of all academic departments today.

Do you honestly think that a person who has built his entire career around evolution is going to give an IDer the time of day.

Yes. A simple example of would be Hawking's public and frank admission that he was wrong about Black Holes and Susskind was correct.

They are going to protect their territory, as demonstrated by the recent scandal, in case you are not up on current events.

It some cases, this is going to happen in every academic , but Evolution isn't propped up by a few, it anchors most of the natural sciences. Geology, Chemistry, Microbiology, Cell Biology, Medicine, Astronomy, etc, etc. Depending on he IDer, they are going to have to make a massive case to justify changein a paradigmn that makes the most sense. They have failed in every way. There is no scientific dispute with evolution in the Science world, but the dispute thrives on message boards. This is what the movement is reduced to.

[3ToedSloth]

What would be the motives of someone who doesn't answer direct questions (i.e., how many paragraphs of Dembski have you read beside the 3 you so inadequately criticize) ?

I didn't answer it because it's a lame question that you are trying to posture with. I've read NFL and The Design Inference.

What could be the motive of someone who then attempts to redirect the debate to a course taught at a University in an effort to discredit a book written by the professor?

I didn't redierect a thing, what you cannot grasp in that post is that all of Dembski's work in predicated on a rational basis for Fisher's models. That is proposition numeruo uno in his argument, to simply skip it and take it for granted would be lazy. It's the best place to start because if no one can provide a justification for it, his conclusions do not follow. If you will not adress the issue, than it's simply pointless to jump all around argueing about different points.

Why would someone attempt to position the argument as (the entire scientific community) versus (one poor misguided mathematics professor)?

If someone's work is ignored by their peers and is universally panned by everyone, skeptic or conservative Christian, that tends to be a red flag.

Why would someone attempt to belittle the opposition rather than engage in a discussion on the merits of the proferred argument?

I'm merely pointing out facts about the reality of Dembski.

Why would someone not respond to the challenge of coming up with a "more reasonable" set of numbers than the one Dembski uses?

You've missed the forrest for the trees. With so many subjective factors incorporated into Bayesian arguments (or similiar models), you could reject any argument out of hand because you do not believe I gave a high enough value to the backround knowledge variable. Thats what makes this entire argument about what was probable or imporbable on prebiotic earth so silly, and someone's dogmatic insistence on estabilishing a value on it...well.....

And lastly, why hasn't the pro-Darwin community ever mathematically quantified the biological developmental pathways necessary to produce life

Knowing what I've just told you, what am I to make of this statement? It doesn't matter what calculus you use, some variables are going to be entirely subjective. There is a sweet irony in this, yes?

, OR, to produce one species from another

Take this notion to the folks of TalkOrigins. They'd love to have ya!

, OR, even come up with a coherent, credible, Darwinian tree of life? If the theory is robust, accurate, and true, then why are there literally millions of Darwinian trees, and there is no consensus about any one tree? Why are there computer programs, (all of them intelligently designed), which can generate a new Darwinian tree based upon the assumptions input to it by the researcher?

I thought this was a really weird demand. How many different types of "Desingers" would there be if the dark ages were to start again and ID was the popular tune? Just one?

IF this is settled science, superior to Intelligent Design, why can't it be quantified and proven as such?

You keep harping on this, and I have to keep explaining it.

Why is there still controversy?

There isn't, outside of the ID poltical movement trying to legislate what they'd failed to advance elsewhere.

Why have biologists not come up with a workable, provable, tangible demonstration of their suppositions?

You really gotta go to Talk Origins and have a chat with those folks who work in the fields. But that wouldn't be as easy would it? Better to hawk it on a Mormon board....

I'm not going to deal with the rest of your diatrabe. So I'll just once again state that until you show a rational basis for Fisher's models, Dembski's work will largegly be assertions and conjecture. This is the only thing thats matters in the discussion at the present, failure to adress it will simply render Dembski's argument impotent.

[Mordecai]

I was going to start a new thread but seeing as this one is still going strongly, I'll just provide a couple links and some discussion and see how people like this:

Self-proclaimed atheist, Thomas Nagel, professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University, has recently named Michael Meyer's Signature in the Cell one of the top ten books of the year and says that

based on his examination of their work, ID "does not seem to depend on massive distortions of the evidence and hopeless incoherencies in its interpretation" (pp. 196-197). He reports that ID does not depend on any assumption that ID is "immune to empirical evidence" in the way that believers in biblical literalism believe the bible is immune to disproof by evidence (p. 197). Thus, he says "ID is very different from creation science" (p. 196).

(From evolutionnews).

Nagel suggests that ID is science and based on his expertise in law and philosophy, it has a place in the classroom. He has, according to his recent essay, read ID books like The Edge of Evolution, and bases his opinion on those books (instead of mindless rants masquerading as thoughtful papers from The Panda's Thumb... As a side note, I've been reading The Edge of Evolution, and it's very good so far).

Anyway, it's always good to get an atheist with a couple PhD's under their belt saying what is so obvious to those of us who aren't victims of group-think in favor of Darwinism: ID is scientific and can't accurately or fairly be termed "creationism." The only arguments against ID I've seen, honestly, against ID being science are factually inaccurate in their premises. If people understood ID better, they would know better than to talk about the supernatural or how it is not provable.

[Mordecai]

You really gotta go to Talk Origins and have a chat with those folks who work in the fields. But that wouldn't be as easy would it? Better to hawk it on a Mormon board....

I've read their JUNK. I'd rather see Meyer win a debate here or read Belerinski's essay here with responses from Darwinists with Berlinksi's rebuttals here. A new video debate will be out soon as well, which is discussed here. Richard Dawkins is afraid of debating Meyer, as a side note.