Convincing Evidence for God
by chunkdzOver at Why Evolution Is True, scientist Jerry Coyne asks for evidence which would convince us that God exists…and completely abandons science in the process!
So what evidence would convince Coyne's readers that God exists? Here's just a few examples.
1.) Amputated limb grows back.
2.) Public appearance by Jesus.
3.) Talking cat.
4.) Everyone saved in a natural disaster.
5.) 300 lb. couch potato wins marathon.
6.) Person with severe Down Syndrome solves math problem.
7.) Minister condemns man, man bursts into flames.
8.) Consuming fire from heaven at Soldier Field.
9.) Instant cure of all malaria forever (without hurting mosquitos).
10.) Suspension of gravity only for humans over 10 yrs old.
11.) Neurologist discovers "the soul".
12.) Galaxies spell out "I made this! – God"
Scientist Jerry Coyne adds a few of his own:
1.) Faith healer restores vision
2.) Cancer in remission (for "good people" only)
3.) Dead return to life.
4.) Meaningful DNA sequences.
5.) Angels appear in sky.
Coyne then offers a challenge:
"This is a challenge to those believers who say that their way of knowing is equivalent to that practiced by science and rational investigation."…"Religion is not a way of knowing because it doesn’t have a way of knowing that it is wrong. And without that, you don’t know if you’re right."
So Professor Coyne, if angels in the sky (or perhaps that 300 lb. marathon winner or the talking cat) were to convince you that God exists, –
how would you know if YOU were wrong?
Answer: You wouldn't. Though you thump your chest about the power of scientific falsification, you have completely thrown that principle out the door. All you have done here is set an arbitrary limit on your own personal threshold of incredulity – "angels in the sky".
Isn't it fascinating how quickly the "defenders of science" will abandon science in defense of their deeply held metaphysics?
July 9th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Or else define science such that it is considered to be essentially equivalent to those deeply held metaphysics.
By the "How do you know if you're wrong?" standard, I've repeatedly asked olegt and others to provide a rational basis for the leap of faith in favor of abiogenesis, for example.
If the leap of faith in abiogenesis can persist despite the repeated failure of attempted abiogenesis theories and the absence of any defensible explanation of how it is supposed to actually work, how can a faithful believer in abiogenesis know if that faith is misplaced and they are wrong?
Comment by eric — July 9, 2010 @ 8:54 am
July 9th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Repeated failure, eric? Surely you are exaggerating a tad. These guys may not have all the answers but they are making progress.
Comment by olegt — July 9, 2010 @ 8:57 am
July 9th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Mostly they are making progress in showing that the other guy's approach is clearly wrong — not merely a bit off, but clearly at odds with known chemistry. And the other guys are doing the same.
So metabolism-first Shapiro writes about why "Many chemists, confronted with these difficulties, have fled the RNA-first hypothesis as if it were a building on fire." while RNA-first Orgel dismantles their alternative and then comments about "…solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on "if pigs could fly" hypothetical chemistry…".
[For more, see Chemical Issues, Part 2 — Battles Over Least Incompatible (and How Abiogenesis True Believers Think).]
So the question is, "How do you know if the blind leap of faith in abiogenesis is wrong?"
Comment by eric — July 9, 2010 @ 9:16 am
July 9th, 2010 at 9:40 am
eric,
I'm sorry, but criticizing one another is only a tiny portion of what scientists do. Their primary duty is to do research (which can be subsequently criticized). Sometimes such work leads to interesting breakthroughs.
Last year, for instance, John Sutherland and his colleagues demonstrated experimentally how building blocks of RNA could have assembled from their molecular components. Here is Jack Szostak's News & Views in Nature:
Szostak sums up the significance of this work and further prospects thus:
So don't tell me there is no progress in this field, eric.
Comment by olegt — July 9, 2010 @ 9:40 am
July 9th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Here are the references:
J. W. Szostak, Origins of life: Systems chemistry on early Earth, Nature 459, 171 (2009). doi:10.1038/459171a.
M. W. Powner, B. Gerland, and J. D. Sutherland, Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions, Nature 459, 239 (2009). doi:10.1038/nature08013.
Comment by olegt — July 9, 2010 @ 9:44 am
July 9th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
How a Neurologist can discover something immaterial? Deaf person can not discover melodies. A science limited only to physical world can't discover the world beyond physical realm.
BTW, hi folks. It's my first comment after a long time. Three or four years perhaps!
Comment by Farshad — July 9, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
July 10th, 2010 at 1:37 am
You know the scary thing is I think I could pull off 2 or three of those God tests.
For instance, I'm already almost a 300 lb. couch potato. Now all I have to do is replace the Gatorade with Ipecac at the next marathon and I WILL BE A GOD!
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2010 @ 1:37 am
July 10th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Farshad! Good to see you.
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2010 @ 1:42 am
July 10th, 2010 at 1:57 am
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Comment by nobody — July 10, 2010 @ 1:57 am
July 10th, 2010 at 8:10 am
From Olegt's comment:
It's not simply that the formation of purines was unexplained. What is unexplained is the functional sequencing of nucleic polymer building blocks. It is the order of them which explains genetic information and expression properties. Planning and intelligence do explain sequencing but that of course is a contravention of the rules of play.
I have an alternative challenge for Coyne. If a contravention of natural law is deemed sufficient to establish the credibility of God (he means a contravention witnessed by him and then he would simply spin another natural unknown into his interpretation) then the sufficiency of natural origin explanations should be required to establish the arrogance which marks Coyne's MO.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2010 @ 8:10 am
July 10th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Good point. If dirt spontaneously turning into Jerry Coyne isn't convincing to Jerry Coyne then I doubt that "sky angels" will have any different effect.
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2010 @ 10:02 am
July 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Sutherland's Progress?
olegt pointed to the work of Sutherland, et al. A simple question anyone could ask is whether this has convinced Shapiro that RNA-first is plausible. Has he come back to the RNA-first fold? If not, why not?
Those who do not share a completely trusting and unquestioning faith in RNA-first and who are willing to assess it with at least some measure of skepticism will be able to notice the highly artificial nature of Sutherland's approach. It is essentially a carefully organized exercise in artificial synthesis, absolutely requiring the knowledge and guidance of Sutherland, et al. In the words of Polyani, it is a "profoundly informative intervention." So as a demonstration that design is not required for abiogenesis, it has already failed.
Stephen Meyer discusses what Sutherland did, the measures taken and the significance, here. For example, in one of three main points, Meyer observed:
olegt's own quoted source made this passing acknowledgment:
Yet even this is understated, since it is not only the starting materials but the protected purity of removing harmful but likely byproducts and cross reactions at every carefully choreographed step along the way!
And as Bradford (and Meyer) have noted, even this is only touching on the formation of material, not the origin of specified information — something that we can already know cannot possibly come from the material itself.
Should Shapiro be persuaded? I think not.
Yet this isn't the most serious deficiency of olegt's response. …
Comment by eric — July 10, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
July 10th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
olegt, the most serious deficiency of your response is that you are evading the primary question. Coyne claims to have a superior way of knowing because, if you cannot know when you are wrong, you cannot know if you are right. The core question I put to you:
You haven't touched that question yet. Generally, you never do. Such is the nature of unquestioning faith.
It is because abiogenesis is perpetually assumed to be true (i.e. the Abiogenesis Axiom)
– regardless of any setbacks or faults of any particular theory,
– regardless of the complete absence of rational explanations for various key aspects,
– regardless of the recurring need for "profoundly informative intervention" in order to achieve any results at all,
– regardless even of any concession that science might not be able to find the answer, at least not anytime soon if at all,
– that there is no option in that system of belief for knowing it is wrong. The "answer" perpetually lives safely in an unfalsifiable, undiscovered realm of the unknown.
[See also How Abiogenesis True Believers Think.]
So, it would seem that by Coyne's own standard, believers in abiogenesis are in a state that cannot be described as a way of knowing.
Comment by eric — July 10, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
July 10th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
You'd think Coyne would settle for the existence of final causes.
His whole world view just reeks of final causality.
A cosmos that is pointed towards the evolution of rational beings.
An evolutionary process that is directed at speciation and the survivability of organisms.
Aristotle and Aquinas would be quite proud.
Comment by GringoRoyale — July 10, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
July 10th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
eric wrote:
eric, I did not indicate that Sutherland and co-workers solved the problem of life's origin. Neither did I indicate that they convinced Robert Shapiro to change his views. I only said that they made progress. So don't move the goal posts.
Your criterion of evaluating progress is preposterous. Shapiro has an axe to grind: he has his own (natural) theory of life's origin. If you applied the same criterion to the Big Bang theory, it would be deemed a failure: Fred Hoyle did not accept the Big Bang until his death in 2001.
To see whether or not Sutherland has been making progress you need to understand his ultimate goal. In his own words: "My ultimate goal is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first." Was the work we are discussing a step forward on the way to realizing that? Sure it was.
"Specified information," a.k.a. "specified complexity," is a nebulous concept that grew out of attempts by creationists to disprove the possibility of evolution by appeals to the second law of thermodynamics. When it was pointed out to them that life did not originate in a closed system and that the amount of entropy in an open system can decrease, they stopped using Shannon information for their purposes and invented a special kind of information termed "organized complexity" (so said Henry Morris). IDers borrowed that term and renamed it, but they never explained how specified information can be measured in a biological system or even in a simpler physical one.
Until "specified information" becomes a well-defined concept, I see no reason why scientists should waste their time on such questions.
Comment by olegt — July 10, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
July 10th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
eric wrote:
Everyone is free to perceive his own goal in life, eric. Scientists are trying to find a natural solution to the puzzle of life's origin. They may not ultimately succeed, but at the moment it is not at all obvious that they will fail. In fact, many of them have their own theories how life may have originated. Some of them, e.g. John Sutherland, are actively testing these theories. Most will fail, but such is the nature of the scientific enterprise. Someone might win.
If creationists wanted to pursue their own theory of life's origin, they would be free to do so. I don't think they are planning to, however. They already think they know the answer. And worse, they believe that they cannot make any further progress on that path. So all they can do is try to prove that life could not have arisen naturally. They of course realize that this is a Sisyphean task, so they simply sit around and predict that scientists will never solve the problem. They have their pseudoscience but they can't even fill their own journals with it.
So why do you pursue this path? There is nothing remotely intellectually satisfying in the ID movement. No excitement, just bitching about scientists not doing the right thing. I'm truly curious.
Comment by olegt — July 10, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
July 11th, 2010 at 8:55 am
So I think what we've learned here is that "evidence" is subjective.
What constitutes evidence is (and this according to materialist/atheist/naturalist/scientistas mind you) entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Interesting. No wonder nobody takes these people seriously.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 11, 2010 @ 8:55 am
July 11th, 2010 at 9:01 am
But don't you know that there are no formal or final causes?
There are just "as yet undiscovered properties of matter".
Science will eventually discover these properties – don't you worry. The scientific method is rigorous – based on the reliable, repeatable, predictable qualities observed in nature…
Oh wait…
Uh… we'll have to get back to you on that.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 11, 2010 @ 9:01 am
July 11th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Perfectly reasonable. Miracles help people believe in God.
Personaly, I think there is reasonable evidence a miracle happened in the past. I also think I've had some answered prayers, but that's just me.
Most religion is not equal to science. I'm an atheist with respect to the majority of religions in the world. Science is a superior way of knowing compared to many theoligcal ideas. No disrespect to the Native Americans, but some of them once beleived that their shirts would ward off the white man's bullets. Empirical reality proved otherwise. Here is the tragic account of a false religious belief facing empirical reality:
http://www.lastoftheindependen...
Similar issues with witch doctors, etc. I sooner visit an atheist doctor who can treat my condition than a witch doctor. That's not to say I haven't seen some suggestion miracles happened. I know some Christian doctors who believe they have seen God's work……
Empirical observation hints that maybe one of the religions is the correct description of reality. If religion is just believing whatever you want to believe, I want no part.
The Chrisitan Darwinist, Physicst, Reverend John Polkinghorne said:
Polkinghorne relates what motivated him (a successful physicsts) to accept Christianity. The historic record weighs heavily for him. He describes my personal view of religion. One should believe in a religion because one believes it is the correct description of reality, not because it is what one wants to believe.
Of course, one could suppose the word handed down in the Bible was mostly a fabrication, but it seems a great amount of it could be true.
But science is a better way of knowing than most religions. If science proceeds from the Intelligent Designer Himself, science can bring us closer to the truth.
In my view, real science has destroyed Dariwinism. Some of the most dogmatic belief in an indefensible position has come from the Darwinist quarters. Darwinism isn't even science any more, it's nothing more than a collection of creeds and assertions that suffer more falsification with every passing day.
The wrongness of Darwinism doesn't necessarily mean God exists, but it is still wrong, and Coyne is an example of someone who doesn't take his own advice. Science has refuted his Darwinistic ideas, and he still holds to them!
Agreed. There are atheistic scientists on both sides of the the Darwin debate (like Nei vs. Dawkins). They both can't be right, so one of the atheist scientists is wrong since both can't be right. Thus it is clear that the process of science isn't an immutable path to truth all the time. It will admit some false belief with the hope that more data in the future will clarify the picture. The inferences that come from science must be held with some degree of skepticism. Science is a good way of knowning when it will also admit uncertainty.
Faith is acknowledging uncertainty, but persuming something is true in the face of uncertainty. Sometimes that is the best we can do since we are not omniscient. Axioms of math must be accepted on faith. It does not mean that math is fundamentally wrong because its axioms cannot be falsified.
Coyne is wrong to presume that the scientific method is immutable. It is a good method, but real science also admits its uncertainties. Coyne is not doing that, and therefore not practicing science.
The question of ID may be an ongoing controversy. But in my mind, Darwinism is dead, it is not science, it is not true, and for sure there is no salvation in Darwinism. Darwinism like the ghost dance religion, is a false religion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 11, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
July 11th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
The problem with science as we know it is that it is done by humans.
The problem with humans is that we are all biased in many ways based on our subjective experience of the world.
The problem with bias is that it colors the conclusions we draw from empirical facts.
This thread is a good example. Coyne and others state what evidence they will accept as "convincing" evidence of God. By so doing they remove themselves from the objective and place themselves squarely in the subjective – as evidenced by the fact that there are different standards of "convincing". (You and I have different standards as well – as you well know.)
True objective science is nothing more than a database of facts about the universe we live in. The interpretation of those facts is NOT science.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 11, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
July 11th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
compares favorably with Coyne and Greta Christina
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 11, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
July 11th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I should point out, Coyne, for all his bravdo about science and falsification, is affiliated with a discipline (evolutionary biology) that is notorious for its lack of falsifiability and lack of direct experimental evidences, and thus its lack of real science.
Ernst Mayer points out (as quoted by McHugh):
So Coyne's field is notrious for storytelling, not for science, and not for falsifiability.
Coyne like Dawkins are self-appointed ambassadors for the science but their discipline by their own admission is suspect as a science.
There is an irony there, imho.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 11, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Which of the following do you intend?
1. Are you simply saying that some scientists choose to look in that direction? Is it acceptable if other scientists (e.g. OOL scientist Dean Kenyon) study the data in light of what we know about chemistry and infer that design is required? Is it acceptable for scientists, functioning as scientists within science, to take and to teach the view that belief in abiogenesis is not scientifically warranted by the evidence, and to support this view with the chemical evidence that this is not how unguided chemicals behave?
2. Or are you claiming that science is obligated in advance to only and always seeking an undirected origin for life? Do you take the view that legitimate science must affirm this faith, and that skeptical scientists who question this faith are thereby not properly participating in the scientific enterprise? Or that papers that use scientific evidence to raise doubts about the sufficiency of undirected processes are not properly scientific?
If the latter better describes your position, I'm not sure you yet realize the implications of Coyne's argument for your own position.
If science is committed from the start to only recognizing and allowing one kind of explanation for life, then you cannot know that the chosen explanation is wrong. Therefore, by Coyne's argument you also cannot know that it is right. In such a system, where only one kind of answer is permitted, the system itself becomes blind and insensible to the possibility that this answer is wrong.
In this way, science can and has become corrupted. It no longer has the safeguards that Coyne assumes. By Coyne's standard, that is no longer a way of knowing. It has become a system of blinded faith.
So which of the above are you advocating?
First, is "intellectual satisfaction" really your most important criteria? Would pursuing an intellectually satisfying fiction still rank above establishing a better understanding of reality?
Whatever your values may be, I find the prospect of establishing a new fundamental property of the universe to be quite satisfactory. I also find consistency with historical results satisfying. So far, science has always found that symbolic information comes from intelligent agency, and it never originates from a mindless, undirected process. What if that is ALWAYS true? That would certainly be something you don't know yet, even though no data yet contradicts it, and the empirical evidence and reasons in principle both support it. It would be a new understanding of a fundamental property regarding the nature of the universe.
Comment by eric — July 12, 2010 @ 9:27 am
July 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
In science, one never knows whether one is wrong, of course. One only gathers evidence to support various hypotheses, just as has been proposed in this list.
I didn't read the source article, but I don't see any chest thumping here. All I see are suggestions for scientific evidence that would support the hypothesis of God. Seems very helpful. Why is the OP so hostile to it?
By the way, one problem with the hypothesis "God" is that it posits an agent capable of subverting the investigation, so none of this evidence is iron clad. Obviously something less that God — something manipulative or even something evil, for example — could just as well make all these things happen, but let's ignore that possibility until we actually collect sufficient evidence to support the basic hypothesis of the class. Once we do that, we can refine our investigation to rule out agents that are less than the Christian God.
Comment by don provan — July 12, 2010 @ 11:51 am
July 12th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Agreed that the assumption of science being a guide to truth is an assumption, it is not a provable assumption, but it isn't a bad assumption. So yes, there is a weakness in Coyne's position if he implicitly asserts science can formally prove the validity of the scientific method. Like the axioms of mathematics (as Godel showed), such assumptions are rooted in reasonable faith, not in formal proof.
The guideline for deciding when something is believable does seem to be somewhat arbitrary. When is a miracle a miracle and when do we classify it as a suspect data point not fitting into our theories? Was something a truly unique event or a bad data point?
The validity of science is a faith assumption, but even assuming that science will lead to ultimate truth, that assumption may come back to haunt Coyne especially if God left a trail of evidence that points to Jesus Christ being the person who claimed he was.
There was an indirect assertion in the movie and book Privileged Planet that science proceeds from the design of the universe. Coyne threw a fit when Privileged Planet was aired in the Smithsonian. Coyne hates the idea science God may be a gift from God! Coyne threw a fit at the thought that God may have made science, and that the fact science itself works so well is a miracle. The account of Coyne's fit is here: The Privileged Planet: Showdown at the Smithsonian
Here is something from the movie which Coyne hated stated by a respected physicist Paul Davies (remember Paul Davies is on the top of science's pecking order and Coyne lurks somewhere near the bottom)
Coyne's insistence on the validity of science may come back to haunt him, if indeed science is a gift from God.
PS
Convincing evidence for the Judeo-Christian God by both Coyne and Dembski includes predictive prophecies. How about daring historical claims?
Physicist Polkinghorne pointed out the Bible makes daring historical claims. Here is a bit of circumstantial evidence. In the Bible it is claimed people lived very long but then had shorter lifespans over time. This is especially highlighted in this discussion between Pharoah and Jacob:
The journal nature reported single mutations in mice create longer life. It would seem humans also had the capacity to live longer. Most of the machinery is still likely there! University of Chicago website:
http://longevity-science.org/#...
One atheist said the Bible was a fable because he said it is scientifically impossible for people to have lived 900 years. There is circumstantial evidence that we could have indeed lived close to 900 years, and that our current life spans are indicative of a deteriorated genome. Actually the mystery now is why our lifespans are so short. Bacteria can live forever if fed. The mystery is why humans live such short lifespans.
The reason the Sanford's Genetic Entropy Thesis is important is that it may place a time line for the literal interpretation of the Geneaology of Christ in Luke Chapter 3. Lynch in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science gave arguments which unwittingly support Sanford's thesis.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument the world is old, but humanity might be young and have no ancestor (like apes). Sanford's thesis may affirm the daring historical claim asserted in Luke Chapter 3 where the genealogy of mankind is traced all the way back to Adam.
Sanford and Robert Carter and other first rate biologists are investigating genetic evidence toward this end. There has also been work that relies on (gasp) Felsenstein (a Darwinist) to affirm part of the Genealogy of Christ. See the Wiki entries on Y-chromosomal Aaron.
In sum, I actually have more sympathy for Coyne's position, but his swearing by science may come back to haunt him someday, especially if the evidential trail is friendly to the creation hypothesis and hostile to evolution. Darwinism may well end up being like the false religion of Ghost Dancers and Intelligent Design being the more reasonable description of reality.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
The irony for Coyne is that science itself may be a miracle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
and
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc...
It was from such ideas by Wigner that modern ID draws some of its roots.
and Wigner adds
Coyne's swearing by science may come back to haunt him. The issue is not sciece vs. ID, but science vs. Darwinism, and science is winning!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Hmmm. Who to believe….who to believe…
Comment by chunkdz — July 12, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
So Jerry finds ideas inspired by religious text to admissable as hypotheses testable by science. I'm fine with that. Let's extend it to not just prophecies but bold claims about history. I'm fine with that too.
Thus, the search for the Intelligent Designer is a scientific search, not merely a theological one.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I was speaking about a position that had not been falsified. "God exists" can't possibly be falsified, of course, so I didn't think we'd bother to consider that. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Yes, you can be shown to be wrong, but the point is that until you are, no amount of positive evidence can rule out the possibility of you still being wrong.
Comment by don provan — July 12, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Sure. Hypotheses can come from anywhere.
A search for an Intelligent Designer could be a scientific endeavor, of course. That doesn't mean that ID is one. These lists of Coyne's are suggestions for scientifically valid evidence. (As I was saying before, it's really only evidence for an intelligent designer, not, as Coyne is claiming, evidence for the specific intelligent designer "God".) It is somewhat revealing that the OP is hostile to these suggestions for a scientific search.
Comment by don provan — July 12, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
The theory of evolution can't possibly be falsified, of course, so I didn't think we'd bother to consider that.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 12, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Convincing evidence for God:
The universe acts like it knows what it's doing.
Case closed.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 12, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
So was scientist Jerry Coyne.
Then one wonders why scientist Jerry Coyne would believe in God if angels appeared in the sky.
Don't tell me. Tell scientist Jerry Coyne.
Comment by chunkdz — July 12, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
They are not suggestions for scientific research. They are "evidence which would convince you that a god exists?"
Duh.
Comment by chunkdz — July 12, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
July 12th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
That is hilarious, Sal. I'd never heard that bit from Dembski. Perhaps they could all write a joint research paper together.
Coyne, J., Dembski, W.A., Christina, G., Correct Prophecies in Sacred Texts: A Complex Specified Signal From God, Nature 502, pp100-102, (2010).
Comment by chunkdz — July 12, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
July 13th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Bill's our man. The quotation can be found here in The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendance and Immanence:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembsk...
Nullasulus should enjoy the essay.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2010 @ 11:08 am
July 13th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I agree that falsifying the theory of evolution would not be worth considering. Individual hypotheses upon with evolutionary theory are based are what we need to test. We'll discard the theory of evolution if enough of them are falsified.
Couldn't the Devil make the universe act like it knows what it's doing?
Comment by don provan — July 13, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Only if the devil were an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2010 @ 8:45 am
July 14th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:
Riddle of Epicurus incoming, brace for impact.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 14, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Well, of course that's not a requirement. The only requirement is the ability to make the universe act like it knows what it's doing, something easily achieved with significantly less than omnipotence, omnipresence, or omniscience.
But even ignoring that, there's no problem: why can't the Devil be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient?
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Scientific research involves collecting evidence.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Believing in something that cannot be falsified is the easiest thing in the world. And, look! Coyne is begging you to give him reasons to believe by providing a list of things that would do it.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
If scientific research is about collecting evidence, and Coyne gives us a list of evidence that would convince him God exists, then God's existence is a field of scientific research.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 14, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
OK, now I have read it, and I notice that it starts with a discussion of the inability to falsify a belief in the existence of God, entirely consistent with what I said. The whole point of the article is that atheists can list things that would convince them God exists, but believers cannot list things that would convince them God doesn't exist, although he leaves the door open for someone to prove him wrong with a counter example. In other words, non-belief is falsifiable, but belief is not.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Yes, that is what Coyne is stipulating here. Of course, he'd also observe that the results are negative.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
You've proven that you quite literally have no idea what you're talking about.
What evidence do you have that "the ability to make the universe act like it knows what it's doing" is "something easily achieved with significantly less than omnipotence, omnipresence, or omniscience"?
How much research did you do to come up with that pronouncement Don?
Remember we're talking about every bit of matter in the universe and all the diverse jobs they do.
Doesn't sound like something too "easily achieved" to me, but then you're the one doing all the empirical research into things.
Define "the Devil".
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Very nice job, chunkdz. You have successfully hoisted Coyne on his own petard. His posturing is clearly rooted in rhetoric, not critical thinking.
BTW, you might enjoy David Heddle’s take on this:
Comment by MikeGene — July 14, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
July 14th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Well I already told you I'm going to gain 40 lbs. win a marathon. That should prove God's existence, right?
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 12:39 am
I get it, Don. You think "angels in the sky" is a falsification of atheism.
So, do we have to capture some of the angels so we can run tests on them? Do you know where we can purchase a supernaturometer to measure their supernaturalness? What level of luminosity does science predict they should emit from their feathery ectoplasmic wings?
Comment by chunkdz — July 15, 2010 @ 12:39 am
July 15th, 2010 at 12:50 am
Well, just follow Mike Gene's link to Heddle's blog. Heddle walks right through that door. He also demonstrates that you are just as wrong as Coyne.
Blistering.
Comment by chunkdz — July 15, 2010 @ 12:50 am
July 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Did you check out the site that Coyne was promoting? Feast your eyes on this display of rational thinking:
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2010 @ 1:02 am
July 15th, 2010 at 8:56 am
MikeGene wrote:
As someone who grew up and studied in a different country, I have been puzzled by the obsession of American educators (usually in social sciences) with this critical thinking thing. It looked suspiciously like a consolation prize: if you can't come up with ideas of your own, at least you can learn to pick apart ideas of others. Cookie cutter.
What do you know, those educators are finally starting to figure it out. Michael Roth, "an intellectual historian and president of Wesleyan University," has an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education where he applies his awesome critical thinking skills to the idea of teaching critical thinking. Beyond critical thinking. An excerpt:
Comment by olegt — July 15, 2010 @ 8:56 am
July 15th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Yes, it is always easier to tear down than to build. In this case, Coyne is so obsessed with and invested in picking apart religious ideas that he ends destroying his credibility on this issue in precisely the way that chunkdz has illustrated. Interestingly enough, the cookie cutters that follow Coyne are oblivious to this point.
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Hi Olegt,
So far, in a thread about Jerry Coyne, you've defended abiogenesis researchers, bashed ID, and taken a swipe at critical thinking.
Do you have anything to say about Jerry Coyne?
Comment by chunkdz — July 15, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
It's not a matter of evidence, just English. There are many powers a being could have that would not be required. There are many locations a being would not need to be. There is much knowledge a being would not need to have. A very powerful, very knowledgeable being could easily accomplish what we observe without being all powerful and all knowledgeable.
We are? How did you discover that every bit of matter in the universe exhibits intentionality? As far as I know, we've only observed intentionality as a local phenomenon, and we've detecting many, many bits of matter that don't appear to exhibit it.
The Devil is an example, so for the purposes of this discussion I'd define "The Devil" as "something that is not God".
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
If your point is that these examples wouldn't really convince Coyne, I suspect you're correct. If your point is that Coyne isn't really interested in such evidence, I also suspect you're correct. Just don't forget that you can't really call him on it until you actually have the evidence to present.
I'd say that's Coyne's point, yes. As I already said, I don't think he's right.
Indeed, the listed evidence would be very difficult to gather. Coyne has left that problem to the person that wants to present the evidence. As Mike says, it's a purely rhetorical trick, and it gives Coyne an easy way out of any claim of angels. But at the same time, someone wishing to present evidence of angels should be able to overcome any problems, else they wouldn't really be able to call it evidence.
Do you want to provide such evidence? Could some Christians suggest ways of confirming some observation was, in fact, an angel in the Christian sense? Wouldn't that be the best way to proceed rather than worrying about whether Coyne would be convinced? Who cares about him?
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
I was surprised to hear that Heddle would abandon his personal relation with God based on an archeological finding or two. Most Christians aren't that shallow. One wonders whether Heddle wouldn't have said something similar about proof the Earth orbits the Sun if he'd lived in an earlier age.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
don provan,
.
Yeah but what two? We're not taking about shards of pottery. The two I listed were:
1) Archeological proof that the synoptic gospels were written after AD 70. Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple within the time frame of a generation is so specific that if it were shown to be written after the fact it would destroy the credibility of the bible.
2) Archeological proof that the biblical writers conspired to fabricate the story of the resurrection.
These would, respectively
1) render the bible unreliable, and so why should anyone believe anything it says, including its promises
2) make us, in the words of Paul, the most pitiable of men.
So yes, either of those finds would shatter my faith. Coyne is wrong. Again.
Comment by David Heddle — July 15, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Yes, I understand that. Nevertheless, most Christians feel they have an actual relation with a real loving God, evidence they think transcends the mundane findings of any scientists. Do you not have such a relationship? Or would this evidence, if presented, lead you to conclude that the being you have a relationship with is a lying scoundrel?
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Heddle's evidence would only refute the Christian God.
Comment by Guts — July 15, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I think that's reasonable. I think it's fair to say that the list Coyne's generated is intended to confirm Christianity. He appears to be using "atheism" in the casual sense of "doesn't believe in Christianity", not in the stricter sense of "doesn't believe in any God".
And my reaction is specifically towards the claim that this would refute the Christian God, since the believer's relationship with the Christian God is normally cited as fundamental evidence. (We all recognize that it's not empirical evidence, but in this case it only needs to be personal evidence accessible only to Heddle.)
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
don,
I only believe in the god of the bible. So that evidence would make me stop believing in god, period, which was Coyne's challenge. It wouldn't make me alter my image of god. I would just say: I've been a fool.
Furthermore, I think you are wrong about most Christians. I think if you had an archeological find that proved the story of the resurrection was fabricated, that many Christians would jump ship–for our religion depends, with no margin of error, on the resurrection being true. But I don't know for sure.
Notice how much more reasonable this is than the examples Jerry's Kids gave on his blog, of messages written in clouds and the like.
Comment by David Heddle — July 15, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
I think it's entirely possible to be ignorant or even wrong about the character and nature of God but still have a relationship with Him. I think many people B.C. and even now are in this situation. This kind of reminds me of Augustine's story about the boy and the ocean where he sees the boy emptying out the ocean with a thimble, the boy will be done emptying out the ocean before anyone can say that they know God.
It's also entirely possible that the evidence of the resurrection and the evidence of Christians who say they have a personal relationship with Jesus (like myself) goes hand in hand. If the former is true then the latter follows. And that's why no one will ever find what Heddle is asking for.
Comment by Guts — July 15, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
In order for you to say this, you must now be entertaining the thought that you very well could be a fool at this time and you just don't know it yet. I've found that most Christians are uncomfortable expressing that level of doubt in their beliefs.
You could be right: Christians that currently profess a deep and abiding personal knowledge of God now might well admit they were entirely deluded when presented with evidence of Biblical failure. History suggest that it's more likely they would reinterpret the Bible to restore its accuracy, though.
I'm not sure what you mean, but, then, the two cases are hard to compare. Coyne is suggesting evidence that would cause him to adopt a belief that, until now, he has not had. What's unreasonable about that? I find it much more reasonable than someone saying, "I've given myself to Christ, I trust Christ entirely with my life, I spend time daily encouraging other people to trust Christ and devote their lives to Christ, and you definitely should, too, but I'll forswear and renounce it all entirely in a second if some archeologist in the Middle East digs up the right thing."
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Can you provide evidence for a your claim that "most Christians" would maintain their faith in the face of such evidence?
I can not fathom how someone could reject that the resurrection was a real objective event that happened in history and still claim to be a Christian.
I know I'd drop my faith like a rock if it was proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 15, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
The question, of course, is whether there's any reason for you to think you are not in that situation. What Heddle's saying implies that he thinks you do not.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
If archaeologists uncover Heddle's evidence then I would say I am most certainly in that situation.
Comment by Guts — July 15, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Then I ask you the same question I ask Mr. Heddle: Do you not have a personal relationship with God? Or would this evidence, if presented, lead you to conclude that the being you have a relationship with is a lying scoundrel?
The point being, of course, that if your answer is the latter, then why don't you doubt that being's honesty in your curent state of not having any evidence either way?
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
You either are or aren't in that situation, you just don't know which. Whether archeologists uncover Heddle's evidence is entirely beside the point.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
That makes no sense.
Comment by Guts — July 15, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
So you think Coyne is lying when he says angels in the sky would convince him? Why do you question Coyne's integrity?
Actually he said no such thing. He said angels in the sky would convince him that God exists. In that case it would be the angels presenting the evidence, and Coyne being convinced that they were angels. No third party needed, thank you.
I never questioned whether Coyne would be convinced. You did.
First you don't take Coyne at his word. Now you demand that "some Christians" help convince Coyne.
For someone who says "Who cares about Coyne" you certainly seem to be going to great lengths to try to bail him out of the irrational pit he's dug for himself.
Comment by chunkdz — July 15, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.
If it was proven that my wife did not exist I would not think she was a liar. I would no longer trust my mental faculties. I would feel like a fool and I would seek professional help.
Until such proof is provided I will live as if she exists.
Unlike Descartesin skeptics who must pretend to live in a world of perpetual doubt I trust my senses and mental faculties until evidence is presented that they are defective in a specific case.
It called common sense and it’s the default position of mankind
check it out
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I have tons of evidence that God is honest.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 15, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
You either are or are not mistaken about the character and nature of God regardless of whether archeological discoveries that prove you are, in fact, wrong. In other words, the lack of evidence proving you wrong doesn't prove you right.
In light of the possibility that you might be wrong, why do you believe?
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Name some.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 15, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
In light of the possibility that you may be wrong about the existence of a world outside of your mind why do you believe?
In light of the possibility that you may be wrong about your own sanity why do you believe?
In light of the possibility that you may be wrong about your ability to know anything why do you believe?
simple common sense
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 15, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
July 15th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Don:
I am either correct or incorrect, but the claim that this is regardless of archaeological discoveries is complete nonsense. If archaeologists were to find remains in israel and prove that it was Jesus I would certainly reject Christianity. But i've seen too much to reject theism altogether.
don:
Well no, but who says there is a lack of evidence that suggests I am right?
Comment by Guts — July 15, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 9:38 am
dp:
This is the silliest remark I've seen in a while. You could insert many important issues into this besides the one alluded to by Don. More interesting to me is why people persist in believing when evidence already exists against an idea. Why, for example, do some think that prosperity is a function of a another stimulus package? Why do some think that prebiotic chemical reactions explain the origin of genetic information? Why do some believe that a "Wall Street reform bill," which does not change the operations of Fannie and Freddie, is an effective strategy? This could go on and on. A lot of this impacts our lives in palpable ways. The bottom line dp, is that atheist materialists operate according to faith in their own beliefs much more than they can admit to themselves or others.
Comment by Bradford — July 16, 2010 @ 9:38 am
July 16th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Bradford wrote:
I don't think anyone believes in this. You don't seem to understand that the objective of the economic stimulus was not to create prosperity but rather to avert a recession. The presidential administration in the White House at the time was not exactly a bunch of socialists.
Comment by olegt — July 16, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Olegt:
Let's be more specific. The spin now is that if we did not spend nearly 800 billion dollars things would have been worse. The predictions then were rosier and included the much quoted remark of Obama that unemployment would be held to 8 percent. We had a recession and there are predictions of a double dip one. That may not happen but what is interesting from the standpoint of a physics professor is the disregard of past predictions which have not been realized.
The larger point is that these issues are largely a matter of faith for those involved. There is no way Obama Inc. will surrender their faith in the ability of the government to move us toward a better society. There is no way to dissuade them that big government is as pernicious as big business or even more so. That's why quasi-governmental entities like Fannie and Freddie do not take the heat that "Wall Street" does. Faith in the efficacy of government is a cornerstone of liberalism immune to evidences to the contrary. Oh ye of blind faith.
From Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/201...
When the recession finally ends two things are very predictable. American businesses, entrepreneurs and workers will have pulled us out of it. American politicians will take the credit.
Comment by Bradford — July 16, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Since this thread is focused on evidence for God let me add my view that blind faith in human institutions like government indicates a redirection of a more basic urge. Humans have a need to believe in causes and in something bigger than themselves. Big government utopian dreams are manifestations of this. Misplaced faith.
Comment by Bradford — July 16, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
A lot of Christians believe a lot of contradictory things. But at least two uniting ideas exist: that Jesus was somehow "God the creator", and that he was killed and came back to life a few days later.
People "believe in Jesus" for a variety of reasons. For example, some people "believe" these things because they merely assimilated it as a child. But some trust it as a metaphysically induced fact of reality, which they credit to the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. I would bet dollars to donuts that the latter category is "uncomfortable expressing that level of doubt in their beliefs" for entirely different reasons than you think.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 16, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
chunkdz,
My opinion of Coyne isn't really very interesting here, so I'm not planning on responding to your points on that matter. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
That photon, right there.
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
So you're saying you believe simply because you can't imagine not believing?
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
If you are incorrect, wouldn't you be incorrect regardless of whether archeology proves it? It's not nonsense to observe that whether you are correct or not is independent of whether you've been proved correct or not.
So in your opinion, Heddle's examples would not falsify a belief in God, only a belief in Christianity. I agree with you. This suggests we'd need Coyne and Heddle to be a little more precise about what they're trying to falsify.
Heddle. Heddle's position implies that all the other evidence would become unimportant if the Bible were shown to be false.
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
It's not a remark, it's just a question. Can you answer it?
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
kornbelt888,
Yes, I think you've gotten my point: people believe in Christianity for reasons much more important and positive than "because it hasn't been falsified". Heddle is suggesting that's not the case, and any simple falsification of some canon would be sufficient to destroy their faith.
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
don provan,
First, it is not falsification of some canon–it is falsification of the canon.
Second, Jerry challenged Christians to post what would make them lose their faith individually–he didn't call for someone to be a spokesman.
He didn't ask what would falsify Christianity, hid didn't ask what would make all or many lose their faith, he asked what would make you, Christian, lose your faith. He asked it like nobody would/could answer–and he was wrong.
Comment by David Heddle — July 16, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
We believe because we are capable of rational thought and must believe in something. That something may be wrong is a trivial observation. Your alternative belief may be wrong as well. So what?
Comment by Bradford — July 16, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
don:
Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that I would believe that i was correct regardless of archaeological evidence. My bad.
Comment by Guts — July 16, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Warning!
This site is infected with WordPress Redirect Exploit trojan.
Instructions to clean:
http://wiki.mediatemple.net/w/...
regards,
Farshad
Comment by Farshad — July 16, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Thanks, fixed.
Comment by Guts — July 16, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
So you're saying it's just an arbitrary choice? That sounds like a good answer.
One difference between this positive belief and Coyne's alternative negative belief is that the positive belief demands expenditure of additional resources such as time to worship. So if the choice whether to believe or not is truly as arbitrary as you imply, then it would make sense to select the negative choice which eliminates the overhead.
What what? I just wanted to know. What makes you think I'm criticizing your choice?
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
The point is that in Christianity as I understand it, canons, however core and important, are still somewhat less important than the personal relation with Jesus Christ.
Other people have suggested that you are, in fact, representative, but I don't believe I've said anything like that. Indeed, I've been consistently expressing doubt that yours is the mainstream position.
I suppose. Someone saying, "If I went to the North Pole and Santa Claus wasn't there," would prove him wrong in the same sense.
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
July 16th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
No I’m asking you to answer some questions to prove that you can’t consistently live according to the standard you are advocating that others live by.
The fact is people (including you) , believe what they observe with their senses and conclude with their minds until they are given reason to doubt the reliability of those facilities in a specific instance or are presented evidence that they are mistaken.
It’s called common sense.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 16, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 12:41 am
The canon you speak of I assume is the New Testament since that is the part of the Bible that makes various claims about Him as well as definitive historical claims about His life, death and resurrection. If Christ did not live then no personal relationship is possible. If Christ did not die and rise from the dead there can be no personal relationship. I would suggest that your wrong in your understanding.
”
I would not conclude that the being I have a relationship with is a lying scoundrel, I would conclude that I was deluded and believed a lie. I would also conclude that this god was not a lying scoundrel since in order to be a lying scoundrel this god must first exist which obviously does not. I would agree with Paul when he states that if Jesus did not dies and come back to life we who believe in that should be the most pitied.
Don do not make the mistake of conflating faith with fideism.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 17, 2010 @ 12:41 am
July 17th, 2010 at 4:39 am
Except that's not what i said. A choice does not imply arbitrariness.
It also means the acquisition of additional resources supplied by the Creator. Coyne's choice induces him to justify himself with countless hours of theistic bashing.
Nice try at presuming a premise you put forth and not I. Atheism is an idol to Coyne which demands much of his time and resources.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2010 @ 4:39 am
July 17th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Hi Don,
A large number of scientists have argued that evolution would be falsified if we discovered a fossil rabbit in Precambrian strata. But what about all that evidence for evolution? They argue that such a fossil would pose such a serious challenge to evolution that this evidence would need to be reinterpreted (evidence is, after all, interpreted data).
I think that’s the point David and others are making. If you can come up with physical evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead, evidence just as convincing as a Precambrian rabbit, then Christianity would be falsified in a manner similar to the falsification of evolution. People would have to reinterpret all the evidence that once led them to believe.
Comment by MikeGene — July 17, 2010 @ 11:26 am
July 17th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I concur.
And more immediately (for me, but not for others) I would leave Christianity if:
1. Abiogensis solved
2. Darwinian evolution proven
I can live with the Big Bang and Old Universe being true.
Convincing evidence for God comes from noting the existence of the extreme mechanical and integrated complexity of life. It suggests a miracle happened.
Dead things don't spontaneously become living. The existence of life is a powerful testimony like resurrection!
If one insists non-living matter doesn't spontaneously become living except by a miracle, then we do indeed have a miracle before our eyes by Coyne's "scientific" criteria.
It would only be more believeable for many to actually hear a voice from heaven and a miracle. I respect the desire for more believable evidence. But formally speaking, as chunkdz pointed out, even such an event observed by the doubter makes an assumption that his perceptions are accurate. The individual in question, could, formally speaking be mis-perceiving things. So at the root of all things, there must be some kernel of faith, even math, even science.
I would agree however, some faith statements are more reasonable than others. As I pointed out, I'm an "atheist" with respect to most religions on the planet save one.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 17, 2010 @ 11:36 am
July 17th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
That photon serves no purpose? Has no function? Cannot be described in terms of what it does? Is not part of a larger system?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 17, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Those things would not convince me to leave Christianity as I can still envision God working through both.
What would convince me is conclusive evidence that either Jesus never existed or that he was a fraud who never rose from the dead.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 17, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Oh, sorry, I guess I jumped ahead and lost you. My answer to those questions is, "I make an arbitrary choice based on the fact that believing leads to an interesting life and not believing does not." I don't know how many people really think about it, but I'd claim that that's approximately the same reason all sane people make that same decision. So is that why you believe in God?
I guess that's a reasonable thing to call it. But I don't see how it applies to your belief in God. Specifically, everyone who is sane answers your questions the same way, so those answers are clearly and undeniable "common". There are many, many different answers to religious questions, so no one answer can, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "common".
Comment by don provan — July 17, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Do you or do you not claim to have such a personal relationship? Christians I talk to invariably say they do, and they are very confident they are correct, and they cite it as the essential piece of evidence Christians embrace. You seem to be saying that I should discount their testimony.
Comment by don provan — July 17, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Oh, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I asked why, and I thought you said +you said you just chose. That made me think you were saying it was an arbitrary choice. Well, no harm done. Just go back and explain why so I can understand why it isn't arbitrary.
OK, good. So how do you know about those? Would your knowledge of those resources give you enough reason to continue to believe even if Heddle's disproofs were produced? Or would the canons being disproved cause you to decide you were mistaken about getting positive gains from the Creator now revealed false?
Certainly advocating atheism takes Coyne resources. Is that what you're talking about? If not, what? He doesn't spend time or money going to Church or reading the Bible. What am I missing? Perhaps you're being distracted by Coyne, specifically. What about an atheist that just made the decision and then leads his life without worrying about it again?
Comment by don provan — July 17, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Yes, I think the proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit example is problematic for exactly the reasons you say. The theories applied by biologists are accepted for many reasons other than that they have not been falsified. The rabbit would cause reassessment of many ideas, but would not automatically overturn all of biology.
And I think Heddle's examples are problematic in exactly the same way. Specifically, I claim that Christianity clearly defines personal revelation as more important than any archeological finding.
Notice that Coyne's examples are logically different. His atheism is based exclusively on a lack of evidence — atheism is simply the null hypothesis — so any amount of contrary evidence would be considered decisive.
As I've suggested already, in practice I don't actually think it would be that easy, mainly because Coyne's examples are not as black and white as he is pretending they are. For example, as someone else already mentioned, it's not clear how one could really confirm that what appeared in the sky was an actual, Christian angel. If that's Heddle's point, then I don't think he's presenting it very well.
Comment by don provan — July 17, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Do you know this for certain? Have you personally asked every sane person?
If there is a possibility you could be wrong why believe?
Do know this for certain? Perhaps all the people who answer important religious questions in a way contrary to biblical Christianity are insane rebellious or dishonest.
If there is a possibility that you could be wrong why believe?
This could go on forever but I hope you understand the point?
We believe what we perceive or conclude until evidence is presented that we are mistaken .
This works with all questions religious or not.
What you have done is inconsistently separate one particular belief from all the others and arbitrarily choose to change the standard of evidence required for it to be legitimate.
Experience leads me to believe that your inconsistency is rooted in rebellion.
I will continue to believe this until I see evidence that I am mistaken
It’s common sense
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 17, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Why are the first two bad for Christianity and the last two OK? It seems entirely arbitrary, almost as if you accept the last two because you believe them and you don't accept the first two because you don't believe them. Where does the idea that the Sun and the planets move around the Earth in perfect spheres fall in your pantheon? Did people that thought that was crystal clear evidence for God leave Christianity when that was proved wrong? Or did they just decide God had an even better design than they thought?
My guess is that if someone demonstrated abiogenesis or proved evolution to your satisfaction — your own personal standard, of course, since it's already been proved to the satisfaction of the experts in the field — then you'd just take that as a sign that God had an even better design than you thought. My gosh, man, evolution is an incredible mechanism! It's way better evidence for God than the idea that God just sat down and magically thought all the species into existence.
But if I'm wrong, and your faith would be shattered simply because it turned out God invented processes that we can understand to start life and produce the species, then I'm not sure you're really a Christian to begin with.
Comment by don provan — July 17, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
July 18th, 2010 at 1:09 am
Feelings and perceptions can be important but without supporting evidential foundations they are unrelaible. So yes if that is all they have to offer as evidence I would advise you to discount their testimony.
Then you are claiming that if it was proved that Christ did not live, die and rise again Christians would still claim they had a personal relationship with a person that they know never existed
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 18, 2010 @ 1:09 am
July 18th, 2010 at 1:13 am
Did I make that claim? Here is what I wrote.
"If Christ did not live then no personal relationship is possible. If Christ did not die and rise from the dead there can be no personal relationship."
And how does this invalidate my obseration that if Christ never lived ,died and rose again no personal relationship is possible?
Feelings and perceptions can be important but without supporting evidential foundations they are unrelaible. So yes if that is all they have to offer as evidence I would advise you to discount their testimony.
Then you are claiming that if it was proved that Christ did not live, die and rise again Christians would still claim they had a personal relationship with a person that they know never existed
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 18, 2010 @ 1:13 am
July 18th, 2010 at 3:34 am
Not in any way that implies intentionality, no. But if you think every photon exhibits intentionality, then your argument falls apart entirely. After all, we know where photons come from, and there's no mind involved, so we do know that something other than a mind can create intentionality. The Sun, for example.
Comment by don provan — July 18, 2010 @ 3:34 am
July 18th, 2010 at 3:37 am
Yes, I do know this for certain.
Yes, I know this for certain, too.
Comment by don provan — July 18, 2010 @ 3:37 am
July 18th, 2010 at 3:52 am
If you'd made that claim, I wouldn't have to ask you if you made that claim. Do you or don't you?
It doesn't invalidate your observation, it just means that you think we should deny Christian testimony since it is not valid evidence, even subjectively. If that's what you believe, that's fine. I just wanted to confirm it since Christian testimony is another fundamental canon.
OK, then. So it sounds like you think Coyne's on pretty solid ground. But that's pretty insulting to say that Christians' personal relations with Jesus is nothing more than feelings and perceptions.
I actually think they'd just find a reason to discount the proof because no matter how iron clad it was, they'd feel that their personal relation with Jesus was better evidence. And who are you to say they're wrong?
Comment by don provan — July 18, 2010 @ 3:52 am
July 18th, 2010 at 8:37 am
me……………
Do you know this (all sane people believe X) for certain?
dp…..
How do you know the mental condition of every person in the world? Are you claiming omnipresence or omniscience or both?
me……………
Do you know this (many sane people don't believe in God) for certain?
dp…..
God says they do (Romans 1:19-20, Psalm 14:1). Now you are claiming to be smarter than God. This is a much stronger claim than the "Null hypothesis" you keep talking about.
Can you see why I might think your inconsistency and hubris might rooted in rebellion?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 18, 2010 @ 8:37 am
July 18th, 2010 at 10:15 am
You hold this belief in spite of the overwhelming evidence that in this thread every single Christian has said that they would cease to believe if such evidence was presented.
In order to hold to your theory you must believe that everyone in this conversation is either lying or deluded as to their own mental state or at the very least you must hold that somehow you have stumbled on a very peculiar set of people that just happen to take a different approach to their faith than the vast majority of Christians
If there is a possibility that you could be wrong why believe?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 18, 2010 @ 10:15 am
July 18th, 2010 at 10:43 am
No it means that Christian testimony is like all human eyewitness evidence, fallible. It is possible that it is in error. So you should weigh it like you do all other evidence of this type. according to the trustworthiness of the source.
Yet you have chosen to treat this particular evidence as subjective and discount it out of hand. I wonder why?
That is not what he is saying any more than saying that my personal relations with my wife is nothing more than feelings and perceptions just because it is possible that she does not really exist.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 18, 2010 @ 10:43 am
July 18th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
No. In the most basic sense we can ask if an atypical event was the cause of life.
A living system becoming a non-living system is a typical event. A non-living system becoming a living system is NOT a typical event, in fact this would be deemed so rare the word miracle would be appropriate.
Whether statistical miracles imply God is a theological and philosophical question, not a scientific one. However, even assuming the following hypothesis is true:
it can be rendered moot if there was indeed no miracle. That is what the abiogenesis researchers are attempting to show, that life is not a miracle.
Hardly! Plenty of experts don't think it is solved or will be solved. Hubert Yockey, Jack Trevors, Robert Shapiro. Some who expressed skepticism were von Neumann. Neils Bohr pointed out there is no necessity for life to spontaneously emerge. The bottom line is that no one has demonstrated life proceeds from non-life without the help of some intelligence.
The typical evolution is living things die and dead things don't spontaneosly spring to life spontaneosly. That's one of the most well established scientific facts.
I'm quite confident the emergence of the first life was an atypical event. Whether that implies it was a miracle, and whether that means God did it is a theological and philosophical question. However, I should note, even Coyne and friends deem miracles at some point to be convincing evidence.
But formally speaking it is not a scientific assertion, it is a theological one. And as Chunkdz pointed out, this implies Coyne would abandon what he believes is the scientific method in the face of empircal evidence of a miracle.
I for one try to stay clear of arguments about definition. Accurately characterizing reality and determining what is really true about the present, past, and future is more important.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 18, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
July 18th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
The point is Don is that I do not make the claim that a personal relationship with Christ in and of itself is compelling evidence that Christ lived, died and rose again.
Don I said no such thing. Obviously logic is not your strong point. I will just quote fifth monarchy
"No it means that Christian testimony is like all human eyewitness evidence, fallible. It is possible that it is in error."
Not only have you exhibited that logic is not your strong point you now have demonstrated that your reading comprehension skills are lacking as well.
Strike three and your out Don. Strike one, you are illogical. Strike two, you cant comprehend what you read. Strike three, facts do not matter to you. Once again I will quote fifth monarchy
"You hold this belief in spite of the overwhelming evidence that in this thread every single Christian has said that they would cease to believe if such evidence was presented.
In order to hold to your theory you must believe that everyone in this conversation is either lying or deluded as to their own mental state or at the very least you must hold that somehow you have stumbled on a very peculiar set of people that just happen to take a different approach to their faith than the vast majority of Christians "
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 18, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
July 18th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
You fail to understand my argument Don.
I am not saying that the immediate physical source of everything that shows intentionality is the mind of God – I am saying that the source of the intentionality that everything shows is the mind of God.
Big difference.
For instance, we know the source of an oak tree is an acorn. That does not tell us the source of the intentionality within that oak tree. Nor does it tell us the source of the intentionality within the acorn. Nor does it tell us the source of intentionality exhibited in every molecule within that acorn, or within the oak tree, or within the photons necessary for the growth of that oak tree, or within the entire universe – which seems to have conspired together to bring forth acorns, oak trees and human beings.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 18, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
July 18th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
It also means the acquisition of additional resources supplied by the Creator.
The best evidence for Creator input is changed lives of believers. Heddle alluded to what the apostle Paul wrote 2,000 years earlier namely, that if Christ did not rise from the dead our faith is in vain. From a practical standpoint physical proof is extremely difficult. For one, if Christ rose from the dead there would be no such proof and searches for it would be like searches for the origin of life- an eternal promissory note.
If you assume the opposite to be true what type of DNA test is conceivable?
Comment by Bradford — July 18, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
July 18th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
My logic only requires that I know that every person I would call sane would make those assumptions. And they do.
Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 14:1 do not define the term "sane", either semantically or legally.
By the way, you've misrepresented me. I said, "There are many, many different answers to religious questions," but now you've warped that into "this (many sane people don't believe in God)", which is entirely different. But I am willing to defend "many sane people don't believe in God", just the same; our society does not accept lack of belief in God as proof of insanity.
I have no idea what inconsistency, hubris, or rebellion you're talking about. I'm the one consitently defending mainstream religion and societal views against things such as your absurd notion that we live in a theocracy in which non-believers are all understood to be insane.
Well, yes, I do, because I don't believe Christians, as a rule, are as fickle and unfaithful as is being presented here. I have no idea why there seems to be an inordinate number of Christians uncertain about their faith responding to me, but it actually might be because people that feel a need for ID to be true tend to have shallow feelings for their religion.
Although, to be honest, I actually suspect it's just knee-jerk defending of a fellow IDer without stopping to think how untenable and how unimportant his position is.
It is possible I do not understand mainstream Christianity, of course, but that would mean that Christianity is far less deserving of the respect I have for it.
OK, that's good to know. Other Christians I've talked to would deny this.
Whoa, there. This is entirely wrong. Your position is that the testimony could be in error regardless of the source. This isn't a question of the possibility of some flake having made up a story that could easily be proved wrong. The claim is that if the necessary archeological evidence were provided, that would prove that the Pope himself was wrong about having a personal relation with Jesus.
The evidence is, of course, subjective by definition, but I most certainly am not discounting it. Just the opposite: I'm defending it against yours and Heddle's claims that it should be considered inferior to archeological evidence.
Comment by don provan — July 18, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
July 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
so you are defining sane as “thinks like DP?” You have also have just redefined common sense to mean “how DP thinks.” with absolutely no supporting evidence or authority just because you want to.
That’s some ego you got there buddy
That is quite the messiah complex you got going there DP. Saving the world and all.
And when did I say we live in a theocracy or all non believes are insane.
Apparently single handedly defending the world allows you to put words in other peoples mouths.
Of course all human testimony could be in error. It is the nature of being human. We are finite and fallible.
Yet in all other questions especially questions of science you weigh human testimony according to the reliability of the source. It is only this one you discount as subjective. I wonder why
Is this definition like your definition of sane a construct of your own mind?
I’m pretty sure most folks would call that hubris
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 18, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Not at all. Researchers are trying to explain how abiogensis happened. If they succeed, that doesn't prove it wasn't a miracle. Indeed, a mechanism to create life that we can understand and explain seems way more consistent with God than Behe's puff of smoke.
I'm sorry to doubt you, but atypical doesn't really seem to be your criteria. There's nothing more atypical than the Big Bang. Which takes us back to my question: Why is explaining the atypical events of the start of the universe or the formation of Earth not problems to your faith when explaining the atypical events of the creation of life and the development of the species are?
I was talking about your other sticking point, evolution.
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
The question is whether you claim it is proof of God.
I don't think you're grasping the impact of Heddle's position. He is saying that the testimony of every single Christian, including himself, should be considered worthless in light of the hypothetical archeological evidence. He has to say that in order to meet Coyne's requirements. If you don't think that's a reasonable position that accurately reflects Christianity, then stop defending Heddle. I'm not the one making that claim.
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I understand your argument just fine. I'm trying to get you to see that it goes way, way beyond "what we know". What we know is the physical source.
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
So are you saying the evidence Heddle suggests is impossible? That would mean he hasn't really met Coyne's challenge as he claims he has. Do you agree?
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I went back to the initial comment and saw this from Heddle:
There is nothing in this about proof of Christ not rising from the dead which is impossible anyway but the proof suggested is logically compelling and also possible. Dating and writing content proofs are plausible. Heddle has met Coyne's challenge.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
In that case, you must agree that Heddle is saying that the evidence of changed lives of believers is relatively unimportant since it would be proved wrong by the hypothetical archeological evidence.
Here's the way I see their exchange:
Coyne: I am an atheist for the entirely arbitrary reason that I have no evidence. If you present evidence, I will quickly change my mind.
Heddle: Oh, yeah? Well, I believe in Jesus Christ for entirely arbitrary reasons, too, so if you present archeological evidence, I will quickly change my mind, too. So there.
It just seems like a hollow victory to me, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Heddle is reasoning like the scientist that he is. He is saying I believe this theory of physics for the following reasons and I believe in Christ for the following reasons (which probably includes the changed lives indicator I mentioned but he can speak for himself). He is also saying this would falsify the theory of physics and this would falsify my faith. All very rational approaches. Nothing arbitrary in any of this.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
But that's the point. He acts as if his position is just as arbitrary as Coyne's and as easily falsified. But I suspect, as you do, that that's not true: that he has actual, positive reasons to believe that would not be falsified by one particular set of archeological evidence as he is claiming.
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
What we know is that the physical source is insufficient to explain the intentionality we see and observe – hence the rational argument that there must be something beyond the physical.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 19, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
No, there must be something else that we don't know about yet. Nothing at all suggests we should conclude that that something is beyond the physical.
And we know absolutely nothing beyond the physical, so, if anything, that's the one thing we don't expect to find. What we have seen, time and time again in our history, is going from having no explanation to having a physical explanation. That has happened repeatedly, but what you are suggesting has never, ever happened, not even once.
Comment by don provan — July 19, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Where did he say that? What he said was
Comment by Vividbleau — July 19, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
July 19th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Where did he say that? What he said was
Specifically it would shatter HIS faith but as for the others he is not sure.
Although he did not say what you wrote I will say it. If you had an archeological find that proved the story of the resurrection was fabricated the testimony of every single Christian should be considered worthless!!!
And yes I do fully grasp Heddles position since I agree with him.
But I do think it is a reasonable position.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 19, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
July 20th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
That's what I said: Heddle's position is that the testimony would be worthless. He speaks only for himself, but he's still espousing a position, which is why I used the word "should".
So you agree it is unreliable. Why should we derive any conclusions from such unreliable evidence?
Comment by don provan — July 20, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
July 20th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 20, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
July 20th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
And once again Provan shows his metaphysical cards.
Just one problem: A true null hypothesis is testable – and atheism is most certainly NOT testable in any scientific sense.
This is central to the subject of this blog entry – Coyne abandoning science to support his metaphysical beliefs. Now we get to see Provan following suit.
Fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — July 20, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
July 20th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
don provan wrote:
Just because you think you're a literal meathead doesn't mean everybody is. Results from 10 seconds of Google search shows your assertion to be a bald-faced lie.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 20, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
July 20th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Vividbleau wrote:
I think what Meatboy is trying to convey here is that no history whatsoever is reliable, because it can be disproven by archaeology.
We should ignore congruent testimony from many eyewitnesses, even though it survived over 200 years of intense state-sponsored censorship (as in the death penalty for its ardent distributors (more)).
We should ignore the fact that the Synoptic Gospels tell the story of a simple carpenter who, for all intents and purposes, accomplished nothing that mattered to any important personage in his lifetime. He performed no miracles for kings, queens, princes, princesses, emperors, senators, not even the relatively low-ranking procurator who presided over his trial.
We should ignore the fact that this low-born man raised in a podunk town in the Middle East who left no writings of his own is the most influentual figure in history, even moreso than any emperor, king, etc., who preceded or succeeded him.
We should ignore these things because we may find a shard of pottery or bit of bone that could collapse the entire house of cards that is written history. Like the existence of Troy, or King Sennacherib to be more relevant.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 20, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 11:56 am
Nothing except the fact that this intentionality is literally everywhere we look – in every physical thing.
If it is something undiscovered, it has to be somewhere else besides in every physical thing we know of.
Or it is something undetectable physically.
I choose the latter, you choose the former.
Good luck with your search!
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 21, 2010 @ 11:56 am
July 21st, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Yeah, sorry. We were talking about Neddle's counter, and Neddle accepts that Coyne's evidence would falsify his position. I think I've already said a few times that I disagree with that, since the question isn't actually scientific. But it's impossible to talk about Neddle's or Sal's falsification lists without accepting Coyne's stipulation that this is a scientific question and the corollary that falsification of related hypotheses is possible.
There's nothing metaphysical going on here, just logic. If "God exists" is taken as a scientific hypothesis, then "God does not exist" is the only possible null hypothesis. Even with the vague meaning of atheism I'm pointed out before, "Christianity is not true" is the null hypothesis for "Christianity is true." Is your point that this isn't an area for scientific investigation, so falsification is not reasonable? Or do you have some other null hypothesis in mind?
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Sorry. The claim is that Christian witnessing is unreliable, since it would be nullified by archeological evidence. Notice that Neddle keeps saying the archeological evidence would prove Christianity wrong, not that it would be additional evidence that he would combine with other evidence he already has in order to reach a conclusion. You have agree with that position, have you not?
So my question is this: if we will so easily abandon Christian testimony if we were to get the archeological evidence — if it is so unreliable that we will simply forget about it if science gives us reason to — then why do we pay any attention to it now? Is it just tradition, just like we believe old wives' tales because they're what our mothers told us?
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I'm not sure what you think you've found. All I see is evidence that something needs to be explained and hasn't been, not an actual explanation that contradicts my claim.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Sure we do. You know math don't you?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 21, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Huh? That's what Heddle is saying! I'm the one saying he's wrong, both in the scientific sense and in the Christian tradition.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
There's nothing for you to disagree with because it is only Coyne's subjective internal belief. If Coyne says angels in the sky would convince him that God exists then you cannot say "No it wouldn't". That would be like Coyne telling you he likes chocolate ice cream and you replying "No you don't".
Sorry, Don. You can't tell Coyne what to believe and you can't tell Heddle what to believe either.
All you can do is what I did in the OP. Point out that Coyne has abandoned science and set an arbitrary limit on his personal incredulity.
No. Null hypotheses are used to evaluate statistical distributions, not metaphysical beliefs.
Ask yourself why you feel the need to conflate metaphysical beliefs with science.
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Dreams. Ideas. Concepts. Intuition. Love.
Wrong again, Don.
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Lets be clear that is not my claim.
There can be no Christian testimony if Jesus Christ ( you know the name from which we get the term Christian) never lived, never died and never rose again. We pay attention to it now because Christian testimony is based on evidence without which there can be no “Christian testimony” The evidentiary foundation is, amongst other things, the reliability of the New Testament as an accurate historical account about Christ, his life, his death and his resurrection. This is the basis for Christian testimony.
As things currently stand the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, IMO, is overwhelming. If that were to change because of an archeological discovery that proved Jesus never existed then I would abandon my faith.
As I stated in my first post do not conflate fideism with faith. Faith is not belief without evidence or in spite of the evidence, that’s fideism. Faith is belief based on evidence. Take away the evidence then there is no basis for faith although there can be a basis for fideism. Why are you having such a hard time with this position?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 21, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Where do you get that? As you say, he's a scientist. He's not interested in evidence that's only subjective, and I don't think you can read his article as asking for that.
As we've already discussed, the listed evidence is problematic and we'd have to work with Coyne to refine what he's asking for before we could tell whether he'd really consider any of it valid, but that doesn't allow us to claim it's subject to his whim.
Huh? I don't want to tell anyone what to believe. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what Heddle believes, I'm not trying to change his mind. What made you think I was?
I'm not clear why you say that. Is it only because the listed evidence has problems such as the angel definition we discussed earlier? I agree with that, but that's, at worst, a bad attempt to apply science, not abandoning it. It's true that the list items are vague and ambiguous, but I don't see any reason to think that's because he intends them to be thusly arbitrary. So your blanket rejection seems invalid, but you might be able to knock down his argument by dealing with the list point by point.
The null hypothesis is used to weight scientific hypotheses. It has a specific mathematical application to statistical proofs, but the concept is more general than that.
It's true that no hypotheses, including the null one, are relevant to metaphysical musings. But I think it's clear that Coyne isn't approaching Christianity metaphysically.
I'm not sure why you think I'm conflating them. You're denying Coyne's attempt to be scientific, so naturally we should expect some confusion in our terms, but I think I'm keeping the two concepts properly separated. Perhaps our problem is in our communications instead of in my approach?
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
So you guy are suggesting that concepts such as math and dreams could be used to explain intentionality? I'm not sure how that works. I was, of course, speaking of knowing about things that we could identify as the source. I don't understand how math or intuition can be the source of intentionality.
And are you saying that God is just another concept like "Ideas"?
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Oh. Then what did you mean when you said, "Although he did not say what you wrote I will say it. If you had an archeological find that proved the story of the resurrection was fabricated the testimony of every single Christian should be considered worthless!!!"? That sounds to me as if you consider testimony sufficiently unreliable that you would not trust it if the necessary archeological evidence were found.
Don't get me wrong: I'm relieved to hear you don't claim that since I don't really think it's a reasonable position. But I'd like to understand how I misinterpreted your statement, since it seems so clear to me what you're saying.
Huh? Of course there can. It would be false testimony, but it would be testimony, nevertheless.
Yes, of course. But according to Heddle, it would all be moot if the one element were proved false archeologically.
Again, Heddle doesn't say, "Well, if contrary archeological evidence came up, we'd weigh it along with all the other evidence we have." He says it would trump all the other evidence right away.
But that's exactly what Heddle denies. He says it isn't overwhelming because knocking out one part would send the whole thing crashing down. That's exactly why I think he's wrong.
OK, now this is making sense. But it suggests to me that one archeological discovery would be weighed against all the other overwhelming evidence rather than being a simple falsification of the entire edifice as Heddle is saying.
I understand that position — heck, I expected that position — if you mean "Take away all the evidence." But Heddle is proposing falsification: one single piece of evidence that would bring down everything. That's conceptually different than the evidence you've based your faith on.
Really, that's the entire point Coyne's making to begin with. Although his claim is problematic in practice, as chunkdz and I have discussed, it is logically sound: one single counter example can disprove a null hypothesis such as atheism. The removal of one piece of positive evidence for a hypothesis only reduces our confidence in that hypothesis, it doesn't automatically refute it. A counter example could refute a hypothesis such as Christianity, but that's exactly what Coyne is saying is not possible. One part of the Bible being a fabrication isn't a counter example, it just eliminates one piece of positive evidence for Christianity.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Are you being intentionally dull Don?
Your claim was "we know absolutely nothing beyond the physical".
In fact, both Chunk and I quoted that specific sentence.
We then countered that claim with specific examples of things we know that are beyond the physical.
Now you want to pretend that you think we are saying that these things somehow = God?
It's a silly statement. I hope it's only accidentally so.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 21, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Don Meatvan wrote:
10 seconds of Google search, meat unit Don.
Let's examine your claim.
Meatvan: No, there must be something else that we don't know about yet. Nothing at all suggests we should conclude that that something is beyond the physical.
And we know absolutely nothing beyond the physical, so, if anything, that's the one thing we don't expect to find. What we have seen, time and time again in our history, is going from having no explanation to having a physical explanation. That has happened repeatedly, but what you are suggesting has never, ever happened, not even once.
Your intellectually dishonest "claim" is more like a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. You're making it impossible to falsify your "claim" by embedding meatheaded definitions:
Claim: "All true Scotsmen love haggis."
Falsification: "My uncle Angus was Scottish but he hated haggis."
Fallacy: "Your uncle was not a true Scotsman, then."
Claim: "There is absolutely nothing beyond the physical."
Falsification: "These people had medically verified out-of-body experiences and were able to sense things without functional sensory organs"
Fallacy: "That is not beyond the physical. Once we find out how that happened, it will be physical."
Get your cranial meat straight, Don. Try being honest and clear for once in your life. I know that's asking a lot from meat, but I keep hoping one day you'll think of yourself as something better than an emergent property.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 21, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 7:53 pm
You're losing, Don. Obfuscate more, that'll help.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 21, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Do not be relieved because you did not misinterpret my statement.
I have no idea whose claim you are referring to regarding the above because it is not my claim. My claim is that Christian testimony WOULD ( not IS) be unreliable if archaeology were to prove the claims Christians testify to about Christ.
Don I do try to be as precise as I can please try to follow. I said “There could be no CHRISTIAN testimony since one cannot testify about someone who never existed. You know the Christ in CHRISTian.
The elements you are referring to are not exactly minor in scope. As Heddle said “Yeah but what two? We're not taking about shards of pottery.” They go the very heart of the Christian faith.
Where does Heddle say the evidence is not overwhelming?
If there is a no Christ there is no other overwhelming evidence!!
No it isn’t. How can the NT be reliable when its wrong about the existence of the person it claims to have risen from the dead? The person that the whole NT is about?
Yes the bedrock of Christianity. No Christ no death. No death no ressurection. No resurrection no Christianity.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 21, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Correction I wrote 'prove' when I meant disprove.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 21, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Here's our problem. What I claimed is that we don't know about anything beyond the physical, not that there is nothing beyond the physical. I'm perfectly willing to concede out-of-body experiences, I'm just saying that the existence of out-of-body experiences doesn't help us explain anything.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
I didn't even realize there was a contest.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:45 pm
No, in that case it WOULD be wrong. Since you cannot rule out it being wrong because you do not know whether that archeological evidence will be found, that means it now, right at this moment, IS unreliable.
"Christian" is a term that identifies a well understood class of individuals that believe in Christ and practice Christianity. Their beliefs being proved false doesn't change our common understanding of the term "Christian" and who it is labeling. Nor does it change the fact that they testified in support of their now refuted beliefs.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:50 pm
There's nothing scientific about the claim that angels would make Jerry Coyne believe in God.
You are being obtuse now.
He told us. Angels in the sky would make him believe in God. He didn't mention anything about "working with Don Provan" to sort out his opinions.
You are really being obtuse now.
Didn't say you were. I said you can't. If Coyne believes in God you cannot say "No he doesn't." And if Heddle were to say he doesn't believe in God you cannot say "Yes, he does."
You are being super obtuse now.
There you go again conflating a supernatural claim with science.
You are being extremely obtuse now.
Nope, it's not. It's a scientific tool.
You are being an unscientific tool.
Umm, angels are Coyne's standard of evidence. Angels are metaphysical.
Now you are just being moronic.
No the problem is that you are being obtuse. Angels are metaphysical entities. Coyne abandons science the moment he uses a metaphysical entity as a bellweather for discovery.
You've broken my three cardinal rules, Don. You've been obtuse, disingenuous, and you've been boring. Go be boring somewhere else.
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Daniel,
Forgive me for being dense. You presented concepts humans have invented as being "things beyond the physical". That was in the context of saying God was a good explanation. I'm trying to understand how God relates to those concepts. I was hoping you could help me by showing how those concepts would be used in a similar way to explain a phenomenon such as "intentionality", thus making your reference to them relevant to our conversation.
Yes, it was clumsy of me. But, after all, you were citing those concepts in support of using "God", so it's reasonable of me to ask you to show how they are sufficiently similar since I couldn't see it for myself. I'm afraid I couldn't find a way to express that other than suggesting you describe how you would, hypothetically, use them in a manner comparable to how you are using God.
Comment by don provan — July 21, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Sheesh is there an echo in this place? That’s what I said!!
Following that kind of logic all evidence about anything IS unreliable.
And what do they believe about Christ? What does it mean to practice Christianity? What is to be the chief aim of believers? Don are you a Christian?
What is the common understanding? Who are the “common under standers” you are referring to? Who are the ones doing the labeling?
Yes they were wrong welcome to the real world.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 21, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
July 21st, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Apparently Don is unaware that intentionality itself is a concept.
Provan, you are the poster child for the disease of scientism. I'll talk to the rest about organizing a telethon for you.
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Let me stop you right there Don.
Humans didn't invent math (my example), they discovered it. 2+2=4 even if no one is around to see it, the pythagorean theorem is true whether there are humans or not.
Humans didn't invent dreams, ideas, concepts, intuition, or love either (Chunk's examples) – they experience them.
These are specific examples of things that exist in every way but physically.
If these things exist – and we know about them – why do you make the absurd claim that we know nothing beyond the physical?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 22, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
July 26th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Game – set – match Don?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 26, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
July 26th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Specified Complexity — Real and Central to the Origin of Life
On the way to Coyne's issue, this mistaken idea of olegt's needs correction:
Quite clearly False — and I'm truly surprised if olegt didn't know this before now.
The term "specified complexity" was coined by Leslie Orgel in the 70's in a book of his on the origin of life. NOTE: He was trying to support, not disprove, abiogenesis.
It is obvious that if someone is going to explain the origin of X, they had better be able to say what distinguishes X from non-X. That is why Orgel drew attention to specified complexity.
Paul Davies, also not an ID advocate, acknowledged the same distinction.
So olegt, you are quite mistaken if you think this issue is an invention of those creationists or those ID advocates.
If you truly "see no reason why scientists should waste their time on such questions", that would explain much about how you maintain faith in abiogenesis. You are closing your eyes to the hardest part of the problem.
Nevertheless, it is plain to those involved in OOL why they must address this issue. It is the central issue. There is no solution without it, and those involved in the search know this.
Davies also observes:
Now, if you still want to claim that OOL scientists should ignore this core issue that distinguishes life, then it would seem you are advocating an exercise that is out of touch with the nature of the problem, which leads directly back to the core question I've put to you. You still haven't taken a clear stand. See 1 and 2 above.
So far, by Coyne's standard it seems your position on abiogenesis …
Comment by eric — July 26, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 7:46 am
eric,
The fact that Orgel and Daves used the term prior to creationists does not make it any less nebulous. It never took root in mainstream biology. Creationists, on the other hand, have been having a field day with it. Dembski has written volumes about it, and yet he can't tell us how CSI can be measured in practice.
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 7:46 am
July 27th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Yet he has.
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible gene and multiply by 2.
What no one on your side can do is show how what IDists call CSI can arise via blind, undirected chemical processes.
IOW the heck with what IDists say- if ID didn't exist you STILL couldn't support your position.
As for "nebulous"- what does your position have that isn't nebulous?
Heck you can't even tell us the methodology used by your position…
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 8:33 am
July 27th, 2010 at 8:36 am
ID guy wrote:
This has the same problem as your attempts to measure information content of a cake. If a gene is duplicated, does the amount of information go up by a factor of two?
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 8:36 am
July 27th, 2010 at 9:21 am
olegt: "The fact that Orgel and Daves used the term prior to creationists does not make it any less nebulous."
You are confusing the reality described by the concept with the question of how to quantify it.
As ID guy indicated, if Dembski had never written anything about quantifying it, what Orgel and others have recognized would still be true — living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. The arrangements are complex, not periodic, but neither are they random. Their very specific arrangement is vital to function.
This is not a hard concept to grasp.
Whether mainstream biology uses that term or others is entirely irrelevant to the point. They are obligated to deal with the reality it represents. The reality doesn't go away, whatever labels you use.
You were treating the topic as though it were a waste a time for scientists to attend to this issue. That is a classic head-in-the-sand approach to the central problem of the origin of life. If scientists think it is too ambiguous, those who don't have their head in the sand about it should advocate coming to grips with the origin of specified complexity, whatever terminology is used.
The real problem is that they cannot deal with it. It receives scant attention because it is not amenable to a solution via law+chance. It is much easier to avert one's eyes and look into other matters.
More to the point at hand, I observe that you still won't take a clear stand on the distinction I raised. Why would you be reluctant to say clearly which position better describes your own? The distinction is pivotal regarding the applicability of Coyne's standard.
Comment by eric — July 27, 2010 @ 9:21 am
July 27th, 2010 at 9:26 am
eric, science was unable to deal with the aether and the phlogiston, either.
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 9:26 am
July 27th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Clearly broken analogy, olegt.
[BTW to all, JOHN_A_DESIGNER has an excellent series of relevant posts over in Top-down information, starting here.]
Regarding the olegt's broken analogy…
I'm talking about an inability to deal with an observable, known, documented reality through appeals to law+chance. We see the sequences. We see they are aperiodic and complex. We see how their specific sequence is vital to function. (In Venter's work on a synthetic genome, an earlier non-functional failure was off by a single wrong nucleotide, IIRC.) These are known facts of biology beyond dispute.
It is all fully clear that the physics and chemistry of the medium cannot explain the origin of the specified complex messages. (See the series of posts mentioned above.)
You're best response is to allude to non-analogous cases of the merely hypothetical.
It would seem that your position is one of faith in the eventual applicability of undirected law+chance, not a position of logic and reason in which you can articulate and show why we should think undirected law+chance can deal with this.
Being a position of faith, that is why, by Coyne's standard, your faith…
That appears to be why you still aren't willing to take a clear stand on the distinction regarding the nature of science in light of Coyne's standard.
Comment by eric — July 27, 2010 @ 10:09 am
July 27th, 2010 at 10:54 am
eric, no analogy is perfect. The larger point, however, is that the history of science is chock-full with concepts that were introduced and found useless.
The case of the luminiferous aether is particularly stark. When it was recognized that light had a wave nature, the only known waves at the time were mechanical such as waves in fluids and solids. So people immediately thought of light as mechanical waves propagating in the aether. The trouble with this hypothesis was that light waves are transverse and transverse mechanical waves exist only in solids but not in fluids. So the aether turned out to have very mysterious properties: planets could slide through it without any noticeable friction, yet it was supposed to be a solid! The aether quietly died when it became clear that the mechanical analogy doe not work and that the Lorentz transformations reflected the interchangeable nature of space and time, rather than motion relative to the undetectable aether.
Specified complexity is another mirage that Orgel chased briefly but no one followed. You can ride with Dembski as long as you like, but he's going in circles and it's a carousel horse.
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 10:54 am
July 27th, 2010 at 11:25 am
"DP: I'm perfectly willing to concede out-of-body experiences, I'm just saying that the existence of out-of-body experiences doesn't help us explain anything."
I cerrtainly would not hang my hat on NDE as being evidence for anything beyond the physical. There are several natrual explanations that fit the phenomena quite well. REM intrusion inthe brain stem being one and also to date Bruce Greyson has had no patients that he has induced heart attacks report the image on the computer screen haning above the operating table. The images faces up so someone claiming to be floating above the operating table would be in clear view of the image. Combine this with the ease of inducing a NDE and it all points to neurochemistry not something beyond the physical.
NDE as evidence of something beyond he physical is extremely weak evidence at best.
Comment by Acipenser — July 27, 2010 @ 11:25 am
July 27th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible gene and multiply by 2.
LoL! The only "problem" with the cake example was/ is you.
Does the functioning biological system also get duplicated?
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 11:33 am
July 27th, 2010 at 11:35 am
So YOU say but you don't have anything so you have to attack the concept.
Strange that you cannot refute Dembski by actually stepping up and providing positive evidence for your position…
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 11:35 am
July 27th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Acipenser wrote:
The "four humour" explanation of health is a natural one that fit observed phenomena quite well, as was luminiferous aether for certain aspects of physics, spontaneous generation for biology, and epicycles for astronomy. They were also wrong.
10 seconds of Google searching yields this
One researcher's lack of evidence is not evidence. To be such a supposedly ardent defender of it, your grasp of science seems tenuous.
If a Near-Death Experience was the exact same thing as an Out of Body Experience, you'd be correct. But they're not, so once again, you and Blackmore are wrong.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 27, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible gene and multiply by 2.
Should be "genes"- if you wanted to know the information content of of one protein you would trace that back to the gene.
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Better think of religion and god as concepts being raised in the course of evolution. They surely had good reasons to emerge and good reasons to survive. otherwise it would have been a long time since their extinction. Plz refer to my blog posting labeled "unification". paleothinking.blogspot.com
Comment by paleothinking — July 27, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
ID guy wrote:
Yes, consider the case when the duplicated gene is responsible for a new function.
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Does the functioning biological system also get duplicated?
That doesn't have anything to do with what i posted.
Strange that you are just unable to follow what is being posted so you have to try to change things.
The following is how one measures the specified information:
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible genes and multiply by 2.
That is what you asked for and that is what I provided.
As for your attempted change to what I posted see "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner- he goes over that very thing.
I will just say that in order to get a duplicated gene to do anything there has to be a regulatory network supporting it.
IOW just duplicating a gene doesn't mean squat.
A duplicated gene followed by a function-altering mutation(s) and integrated into the existing system- covered by Spetner.
And even then if the cell is just producing another polypeptide that is free to diffuse about the cytoplasm that is most likely to be something that get just get in the way.
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Joe, you're not saying it outright, but I take it that a new functioning gene arising as a result of duplication, subsequent point mutation or reshuffling, and positive selection, adds the same amount of information as its prototype. Agree? Disagree?
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Dick,
Try to focus-
And I responded to that pap by telling you how to go about doing just that:
The following is how one measures the specified information:
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible genes and multiply by 2.
Agree or Disagree?
Then we may be able move on to your moved goalposts.
IOW dick you have a nasty habit of trying to change the topic before even establishing a point of reference.
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
It would all depend.
Adding a new line of code to a computer program can kill the program.
As for your attempted change to what I posted see "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner- he goes over that very thing.
It's as if he predicted your evotardgasm.
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
ID guy wrote:
Joe, it's impossible to discuss anything with you. You are so afraid that someone might trick you that you deflect the simplest questions and clam up. If you prefer to stay in that mode, fine.
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
And dick, I know what you are trying to do.
However not only has Spetner covered it, so has Meyer in "Signature in the Cell"…
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Nice projection ole goal-post mover.
That is all you clowns try to do.
Obviously that is all you have.
However that is all meaningless as you refuse follow the discussion.
The following is how one measures the specified information:
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible genes and multiply by 2.
Agree or Disagree?
Then we may be able move on to your moved goalposts.
Stop being a baby
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
In the case of a DELETION then I would disagree.
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Does the functioning biological system also get duplicated?
Then that would be a "No" if that was trying to answer my question.
However it is quite obvious that you were not trying to answer my question.
And you that it is impossible to have a discussion with me?!
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Allll righty then- olegt's nebulous claim of:
Stands refuted-
The following is how one measures the specified information:
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible genes and multiply by 2.
Anything else I can help you with OT?
Comment by ID guy — July 27, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Joe, you're an idiot. Pardon for being direct.
I have already explained to you once that it is not enough to assign a number to a physical object. You need to specify rules that apply to these numbers. That's called a theory. You refused to tell me then whether specified information is an additive quantity, you refuse to answer similar questions about SI content of genes. That indicates that your recipes are meaningless. You have come up with arbitrary numbers but you don't know what to do with them.
So bug off.
Comment by olegt — July 27, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
July 28th, 2010 at 9:21 am
olegt, you are a moron. You are also twisted and dishonest.
You proved such when you posted your pap on Joe's blog.
That you would link to it as alleged support for your position speaks volumes about your stupidity.
First things first ole ignorant one.
You refuse to understand that simple concept.
FIRST we have to establish a base point-
The following is how one measures the specified information:
Just take a functioning biological system, count the nucleotides in the responsible genes and multiply by 2.
Only AFTER we establish that base can we address your moved goal-posts.
Also looky what I found:
Oleg Tchernyshyov – Intellectual Coward and Crackpot:
Ooops! it is additive! And you were told!
A- YOU don't know what to do with them- I know what to do.
B- That doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.
As for what is and isn't a theory it is very telling that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for your position…
That makes just about everything you say meaningless as you refuse to answer all questions…
Comment by ID guy — July 28, 2010 @ 9:21 am
July 28th, 2010 at 10:07 am
So I'm and idiot because YOU cannot grasp simple concepts and YOU refuse to follow what I post?
Then what does that make YOU?!
Comment by ID guy — July 28, 2010 @ 10:07 am
August 1st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Amazingly, in spite of repeatedly avoiding clear direct questions, olegt wrote:
Yet, you've clearly clammed up regarding giving an unambiguous answer to which meaning of science you intend (see 1 and 2 above).
I wouldn't be surprised by frank disagreement and alternate viewpoints, but I am disappointed that you don't seem willing to even take an unambiguous stand for your own position on this pivotal issue.
Not depending on Dembski at all in this matter. As stated earlier, it wouldn't matter at all if Dembski had never said one thing about this topic.
Orgel never recanted the reality of specified complexity, nor has Davies. How could they? The reality of the complexity of biological information and the necessity of sequence to function is a fact not in dispute in modern biology — no matter how much you might prefer the stick-head-in-sand strategy.
Here is an actual example, and highly relevant. After discussing the stalemate of attempting to account for genome's coded sequences apart from intelligent agency, JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
An unknown cause that acts like intelligence (yet is before biology and is not mere chemistry). There is an excellent example of a concept that is not only useless, it even defies clear coherent description.
Comment by eric — August 1, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Clearly the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a natural and empirically knowable explanation for the origin of life (which must also explain the origin of it's coded sequences). It’s irrational to demand that yet-to-be-discovered-empirical-explanations be accepted on faith.
If an empirical (repeatable, testable etc.) explanation for the origin of life’s coded sequences can be shown to be forthcoming I will gladly reconsider my position. Until then my belief that is that some kind of intelligence (most logically an eternally existing transcendent intelligence) is the best explanation for the origin of ‘the code‘. I challenge you to come up with a better explanation.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 2, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:29 pm
If it is repeatable, then that—in and of itself—shows intentionality (as in final causality) of whatever the "natural" life-building components turn out to be. There's no need to reconsider.
Final causality in nature requires intelligence, more than that, it requires supernatural intelligence. The reason being that all of nature exhibits intentionality such that A usually follows B (unless impeded). This sort of intentionality—the aiming at a goal beyond one's self—only comes from minds, yet these natural objects have no mind – thus the source of their intentionality has to be a mind outside of nature: a supernatural mind.
Materialists have no explanations for this (see don provan's weak attempts above). They can only appeal to as-yet-undiscovered properties of nature.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 2, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Should We Believe in an Active Abiogenesis Aether*?
And also contrary to the spirit of true science. (Nice series of explanation posts, btw.)
Whether it is olegt or Coyne, it is amazing to me the extent to which dependence on implicit appeals to faith in preconceived answers goes unchecked and unquestioned.
Coyne writes about what he would consider convincing evidence for God, but where is there anything like that applied to convincing evidence for the existence of a non-intelligent Active Abiogenesis Aether*?
I've just finished reading Science's Blind Spot, The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, by Cornelius G. Hunter. A very worthwhile read, and recommended, particularly for its examination of the historical progression that lead to our current state of affairs.
*Stand-in term for the hypothetical active agency, existing before biology yet being somehow beyond mere chemistry, that is not intelligent, yet is supposedly responsible for the coded sequences of complex, specific information in cells — an agency that so far has no more documented substance than olegt's historical example of luminiferous aether.
Comment by eric — August 2, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
eric wrote:
This is hilarious, eric. Scientists don't practice recantation. Scientific "heretics" are not exactly persecuted, so there is no need to "recant."
Let me tell you a little secret, eric. It does not matter that there is one scientist somewhere who believes in his own theory. If other scientists do not find it useful, it will die a quiet death, sometimes along with its author.
Fred Hoyle never accepted the Big Bang. He died in 2001, decades after the theory gained wide acceptance. He never "recanted," but that hardly matters these days.
Comment by olegt — August 2, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
olegt is apparently unwilling or unable to distinguish between a particular terminology and the reality it represents.
Are the genome's sequences of coded information highly complex (i.e. aperiodic and noncompressable)? Obviously yes, and the field of biology knows this. It is uncontested, observable, documented fact.
Are the genome's sequences of coded information merely randomly complex, such that the specific order of nucleotides in the sequences does not matter to function? Again the answer is obvious. No, the specific sequences are important to function. (As I mentioned earlier, one of Venter's synthetic genome attempts was off by a single nucleotide, yet non-functional.) Again, this is not news to anyone informed about biology.
olegt, your attempts at semantic dodging fail to justify your stick-head-in-sand approach to the problem of how to account for the origin of these functionally significant, specific, and complex sequences of nucleotides.
It is also plain that you are dodging rather than addressing the fact that you are resting on an implicit appeal to faith — let's call it the Active Abiogenesis Aether, for lack of a better term — a faith for which you have not yet been able to articulate a rational justification.
By Coyne's standard, your faith "is not a way of knowing because it doesn’t have a way of knowing that it is wrong. And without that, you don’t know if you’re right."
You've clammed up on the question I've put to you. Yet you dare to scold others for clamming up. Amazing.
Comment by eric — August 2, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:38 pm
eric,
I don't owe you anything. I choose to answer some of your questions and I am free to ignore others. Particularly when I do not see much sense in them.
Comment by olegt — August 2, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I suspect that Coyne doesn’t recognize that as a problem because his metaphysical default position is materialism/ naturalism. In other words, there must be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life because there is no other possible explanation.
Of course I don’t think that this is a metaphysically or logically defensible position; but here is where Coyne and other materialists/ naturalists try to pull another fast one. They simply claim their position is not a metaphysical one. A little spin a little rhetorical sleight of hand and voila! With a little fanfare they announce, “We haven’t solved the OoL problem yet but we’re getting close.” Add some hubris and group think and you have a group of people believing something without believing they are just believing it.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 2, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Not a very intellectually persuasive answer, olegt. But perhaps that is the best response available to you.
(You are also "free" to employ a double standard, faulting others for clamming up while justifying in your own mind your own freedom to clam up.)
By implication, would this mean that you "do not see much sense in" the need to articulate a rational justification why we should believe that the Active Abiogenesis Aether exists?
Not seeing "much sense" in that would be a strong confirmation that you are operating by unquestioning faith — which Coyne indicates is not a way of knowing.
How about providing a list of the scientists who have shown Orgel and Davies to be wrong about the nature of the specific, complex coded information in the genome? I don't care what terminology they prefer. Who thinks that what they meant by "specified complexity" was wrong? Who has refuted such thinking? How was it wrong?
And who specifically agrees with your suggestion that it does not represent an important concern for the origin of life that scientists need to bother about? In what way do they support a stick-head-in-sand approach?
Comment by eric — August 2, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
eric wrote:
This is silly, eric. Science is not a school debate team. You don't need to show that a competing theory is wrong, you need to prove that yours is right. Scientists don't play against each other, they all face the same formidable opponent: Nature. She is quite unforgiving. She is worse than the third reviewer.
Go to a scientific conference and observe how scientists interact. They don't do debates. When someone gives a 30-minute talk, just 5 minutes of that time is reserved for questions and answers. And the questions that are asked are not debate-style, either. They are clarifications.
Comment by olegt — August 2, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Hahahaha!!!! That's hilarious olegt. Provide an assertion of how someone is wrong about a concept and then when pushed to clarify on how that person is wrong … resort to … "but you're being silly, science isn't done that way …"
Olegt, all I see here is you refusing to back up any of your assertions. What are you doing here anyway?
You state that "You don't need to show that a competing theory is wrong, you need to prove that yours is right."
So I ask, what are you doing to show that the theory to which you subscribe — aptly summed up by eric as the "active abiogenesis aether" — is right? Surely you're not here to tell us that our competing theory is wrong? And if so, why aren't you backing up any of your assertions, especially when eric questioned you about your statements re: specified complexity? Either way, in backing up the theory to which you subscribe or in showing us that our competing theory is wrong, you are as productive here as a bump on a log. Discussing these issues with you appears to be as hard as squeezing blood from a rock.
So, are you here merely for entertainment value, because you are certainly providing as much.
The rest I'll leave for eric …
Comment by CJYman — August 2, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:23 am
CJYman wrote:
You don't even have a competing theory, CJYman. "It was designed" is not a theory. It's a hunch. ID people refuse to develop anything that would resemble a theory. As Dembski wrote, "it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories."
In contrast, scientists working on abiogenesis, are looking for specific pathways of life development and test them in the lab. That's how science is done.
Comment by olegt — August 3, 2010 @ 7:23 am
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Of course not everyone uses the term “specified complexity” but finding a natural process that can create the specific sequences that can function as a primitive cell of replicator is recognized as a key problem that needs to be solved if we are ever going to explain the OoL au natural.
For example, in his 1986 book, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide To The Creation of Life On Earth, Robert Shapiro talks about how difficult it would be to assemble by chance a simple replicator. He writes: “The minimal published estimates of its size propose a single strand of RNA of perhaps 20 nucleotide. To build this structure about 600 atoms would have to be connected in a specific way.”
Why does Shapiro say that the sequence had to be assembled in a specific way. Because not any sequence of either RNA or protein (depending on what particular scenario with which one begins) will result in a biologically useful function.
On the next page Shapiro talks about "Charlie the Chimp" who is capable of sitting at a typewriter and typing “one line a second, completely at random.” (Apparently forever and forever.)
For example, for Charlie to type out a short phrase “to be or not to be: that is the question,” by chance requires on average about 10e66 trials. “The chances of Charlie typing a 600-letter message correctly,” (roughly analogous to the 600 atom molecule mentioned above) writes Shapiro, “are 1 in 10e992.”
“Of course,” he continues, “atoms and letters, molecules and words, cannot be compared directly.”
Nevertheless, Shapiro concedes, that “the odds against the random generation of a nucleic acid replicator… are still so unfavorable that the formation of [it] by chance would seem miraculous.”
My point here is not, however, to discuss the odds, but to ask why Shapiro is using the Charlie the chimp analogy here? It is because specific biochemical sequences are critical for the origin, function and evolution of life. If there is research out there the proves that any old sequence will do I’d like to see it.
Furthermore, Shapiro published his book in 1986, long before William Dembski appeared on the scene. In other words, specified complexity (or whatever term you choose to use) is a concept that comes from origin of life research itself, not ID.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 3, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:22 pm
YOU don't have a competeing theory oleg. "It wasn't designed" is not a theory.
Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
They would have better luck finding tits on a bull.
If geologists looked for a geological process that could account for Stonehenge they would be conducting science?
That is they ignore all the data that says Stonehenge was designed and just pressed on- would that be science?
Would you support that?
Comment by ID guy — August 3, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
He certainly isn't here to support his position…
Comment by ID guy — August 3, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
August 4th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
From David Heddle:
God Physical Evidence
Heddle echoes his Calvinistic views that the "conving evidence" for God must come from God and God must make the ability to perceive the truth possible.
Dembski pointed out the same issue that emerged pertaining to the Klein-Gordon field equations : The Last Magic
and Paul Davies made a similar argument in his Templeton Prize Winning book, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World.
Wigner expressed these senetiments when he said:
which echoes Einstein's astonishment of the comprehensibility of the universe:
This has been echoed as I've heard professor after professor comment on how fortuitious the structure of nature is and its accessibility to observation and measurement. Some have even used the word "miraculous" in class as well.
From my perspective, it seems something has ordained us with the ability to measure and observe nature.
We also seem to be living on a privileged planet to make privileged observations. One of my Darwinist teachers who rather despised ID
observed:
Such comments don't get easily erased from one's memory.
I wrote an post on the fact one may not need "convincing evidence" of God to move forward with religious belief. A suspicion of truth might be enough to keep the search for God alive and vigorous. See: Pascal's Wager
Dawkins (according to VoxDay) declares himself to technically be an agnostic but one who believes the probability of God's existence to be low. That in itself would not be sufficient to consider Pascal's wager, but if Dawkins also thinks the possiblity of Heaven or Hell is real, even if the probability is low, then Pascal's wager would be a consistent wager with that belief.
My personal view is that the evidence is compelling (even if not always convincing) enough to me to invoke Pascal's wager. I do this primarily because I have nothing to lose even if there is no god. To use gambling terms, the expected value of atheism is no greater than zero as time approaches infinity, and that is true even on the assumptions of the axioms of atheism.
I recall once talking to my friend and music teacher. I said, "Gwen, I have doubts about God." She said, "but where elss will you go?" She stated the heart of pascal's wager in very simple terms, and I never forgot that.
It would be better to venture into a realm where there may be even a thread of hope versus a realm of atheism where surely (as even atheists like Russell have pointed out) there is no logically demonstratable hope.
Finding convincing evidence of God is a noble goal, but one only needs a reasonable suspicion to begin the quest. But isn't that the heart of science? We don't need absolute proof of something's existence in order to begin the search! A reasonable suspicion will suffice.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 4, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
August 4th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Here is a more recent article, “Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) measured in Fits (Functional Bits),” supporting the idea of specified coded sequences by David L. Abel. Abel argues that “Sequence complexity has three subsets: Random (RSC), Ordered (OSC), and Functional (FSC). “ Sequence complexity, albeit using different terminology, is what Eric and I have been discussing in this thread.
Here are a few choice excerpts from his article:
Who is David Abel? Does he support ID? Is he sympathetic with ID. Does anyone know?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 4, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
August 4th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Thomas of Aquinas famously reasoned out five proofs of God. Many other Christian philosophers have done the same. One can reasonably conclude that there must be a God without actually "seeing the kingdom of God". Aristotle reasoned a necessary "unmoved mover" without (to my knowledge) being born again.
The bible says that "everything that can be known about God" (i.e. what we are capable of knowing) is "plain" to us "being seen in what has been made". IOW, there's enough evidence in plain sight to conclude that God exists.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 4, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
August 4th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
No Christian (as far as I know) will disagree with this but it is only part of the story. The truth of God’s existence is indeed obvious but rebels actively suppress that truth.
You can’t expect to use reason to convince those whose entire life is based on the proposition that God does not exist that he does.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 4, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
August 5th, 2010 at 1:04 am
olegt:
"You don't even have a competing theory, CJYman. "It was designed" is not a theory. It's a hunch."
Call it a hunch, call it an hypothesis, call it an inference to the best explanation, or even call it a law — I really don't care. All I know is that it relies on observation, mathematics, testing with information processing systems, and makes potentially falsifiable claims.
Here's a question for you. Echoing ID guy, what is the theory behind replicating information processing systems accidentally developing through law+chance absent any previous intelligence?
olegt:
"ID people refuse to develop anything that would resemble a theory. As Dembski wrote, "it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories."
You are somewhat correct. Although it doesn't have much to do with "refusal" as such. ID Theory is actually, technically more of a law of cause and effect rather than a mechanistic theory. This is why evolution and IMO even abiogenesis (defined strictly as matter to life without artificially removing the intelligence component) provide the mechanism and as potential theories are fully compatible with ID "Theory." But then again, there is still a mechanism one must utilize to detect the effects of previous intelligence, so in that sense ID does have a theoretical component.
olegt:
"In contrast, scientists working on abiogenesis, are looking for specific pathways of life development and test them in the lab. That's how science is done."
Assuming that by "abiogenesis," you are referring to the accidental, unplanned, generation of replicating information processors via a chance assemblage of laws, then that's akin to stating that scientists working on perpetual motion machines are looking for specific pathways to perpetual motion, free energy systems and try to test these in labs. In the end it really doesn't matter what one calls it — science or heresy — it defies the foundational law of science.
Further, I'd like to hear your answer to ID guy's question:
"If geologists looked for a geological process that could account for Stonehenge they would be conducting science?
That is they ignore all the data that says Stonehenge was designed and just pressed on- would that be science?
Would you support that?"
Comment by CJYman — August 5, 2010 @ 1:04 am
August 5th, 2010 at 10:33 am
How curious– someone calls olegt’s bluff and he drops out of the game. Oh well, I am sure that he has better things to do.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 5, 2010 @ 10:33 am
August 5th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Yes, John, I have better things to do at the moment: I am running a science conference at my university this week and my hands are tied.
I can respond quickly to CJYman's point:
The analogy does not hold. Perpetual motion machines are ruled out by the law of energy conservation. There is no law that precludes the formation of life from chemical blocks.
Creationists have tried to use the second law of thermodynamics, but these attempts have been rebutted many times. The amount of Shannon information contained in the DNA is minuscule compared to the amount of entropy flowing in and out of a cell. Estimates have been provided, e.g., by Dan Styer of Oberlin College. See Entropy and Evolution.pdf.
Now creationists say Shannon information is not the right concept and they want to argue that "specified information" can only be generated by "intelligence." There is no law that prescribes that and the concept remains poorly defined. No one knows how "specified information" can even be measured.
If you want to argue, along with Joe G, that "specified information" is the Shannon count of "functional" gene sequences, we know that this sort of information content can increase through well-understood natural processes such as gene duplication and subsequent point mutations. There are known examples of that.
So your comparison does not have legs to stand on. The purported law does not exist and more practical measures of information content seem to increase fine with just the natural forces involved.
Comment by olegt — August 5, 2010 @ 11:12 am
August 5th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
And how do you know that?
As far as you know there are still undiscivered laws.
For example Stonehenge or my cars- what is it that prevents the formation of those via blind, undirected processes?
What do you mean by "Now"?
I have a book by Werner Gitt "In The Beginning was information"- 1997- which discusses the point about Shannon information.
However it is better defined than anything your position has to offer.
You mean no one on your side of the fence.
IDists have written how to do that. That you can ignore what we say doesn't mean anything to us.
Meyer, Behe and Dembski said that SI is biological function.
There isn't any evidence that a gene duplication is a blind, undirected chemical process.
And then to have that gene expressed and intergrated into the system is quite another story.
Dr Spetner goes over this in "Not By Chance".
That you can ignore that book and blather on says quite a bit about you.
IOW olegt in order to refute an argument first you have to understand it.
Comment by ID guy — August 5, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
August 5th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
It worked on Antony Flew.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
August 5th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Hey Daniel,
Baring some sort of death bed conversion Flew never came to believe that the Christian God exists. He merely traded one form of rebellion for a more subtle one.
Imagine someone denying that Daniel Smith exists.
You proceed to exert much time and energy convincing him of his error using reason.
Finally he announces with much fanfare that he was wrong and agrees that Daniel Smith does indeed exist and is in fact the first female president of Ethiopia.
Would you be satisfied or disappointed?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 5, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
August 6th, 2010 at 12:15 am
A better question is how do blocks of chemical (amino acids, nucleic acids) create coded sequences that specify cellular functions. Because there is nothing intrinsic in the chemicals themselves that determine any specific sequence. If the chemistry did determine a sequence it would be what David Abel refers to as Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC), In the article that I cited above Abel writes:
“No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated function or true organization. Algorithmic optimization requires choices to pursue eventual ideal function. Prescriptive information, circuit integration, and organization all invariably manifest FSC.”
OSC I believe is the kind ordered complexity that we observe in a crystal–periodic and repetitive but not very versatile in terms of functionality.
FCS is what Abel refers Functional Sequence Complexity. Though he doesn’t use the say terminology Franklin Harold in his book, The Way of the Cell, gives us a brief description of how FCS operates within the cell.
Nobody has a clue how any of this originated or evolved.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 6, 2010 @ 12:15 am
August 7th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
How ironic!
Contrast that with when I asked olegt to back up his implied claim that "specified complexity" has no continuing acknowledgment within biology (thereby justifying his stick-head-in-sand advocacy of not needing to bother about it).
In reality, scientists routinely critique and criticize competing views. The Origin of Life question has been one long litany of building support for the latest "new idea" by showing how it doesn't fail in the way that the previous "new idea" clearly failed.
olegt is using rhetoric to try to dodge the fact that biology has never denied the reality that Orgel and Davies wrote about. (Hence his complete inability to document any rebuttal, or even criticism.)
Biologists simply have no way to explain it using law+chance. It is a persistent embarrassment to the abiogenesis faith.
[Time permitting, more later on olegt's other dodge attempts...]
Comment by eric — August 7, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
August 7th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
eric, you're not making any sense!
You're asking me to prove a negative, eric, and that's impossible. The burden is on you to show that SC has taken root in biology. If it has there should be hundreds of articles in mainstream biological journals using the concept. There are none. Go ahead and search for SC on the ISI Web of Science. Let us know what you find.
Comment by olegt — August 7, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
August 7th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
No, I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to back up the idea that any scientists disagreed with the reality that Orgel and Davies wrote about. However, I will grant that that is an impossible task — since scientists are not disagreeing with the obvious reality.
1. Who thinks the sequences that code for proteins are not complex (i.e. long, aperiodic and non-compressible)?
2. In comparison to random complexity, who thinks that the specific order in the sequences does not matter?
NOTE: This is not a request for a proof. This is a request for you to identify credible scientists anywhere who deny or even question these obvious facts. This is basic biology.
Your attempts at hiding or denying the obvious fail. Here are some other failed attempts to dodge inconvenient realities.
To start with, it is begging the question to assume the context of a cell. A cell already has the enzymes needed to harness energy toward biological function, even when that means going uphill thermodynamically. The prebiotic world does not.
The thermodynamic problem has never been the amount of energy available, but rather the severe fact that the prebiotic world has no engine that will effectively direct and guide that energy toward the necessary task of building all the specific cellular enzymes needed to drive vital reactions uphill in ways that cells and life requires. (More here.)
This is where the mysterious Active Abiogenesis Aether would need to come in – if it existed. Unless and until it is found, you literally don't have an adequate thermodynamic engine to stand on. (More here.)
Absent the existence of such an engine, randomly applied energy works better at breaking down complex structures than in building them up in functionally specific ways. That is why Controlling the Energy Sources becomes an essential interference practice with OOL experiments.
Shannon information only measures information carrying capacity, and makes no distinction between meaningful, functional content and complete random gibberish and noise. Random chance fully explains random complexity. Chance has never explained functional sequences, such as those needed in cells for specific reactions that have to go uphill thermodynamically. (See also JOHN_A_DESIGNER's recent posts above.)
Mere Shannon information cannot give you what you need to solve the problem. That hand waving dodge doesn't work. It is exactly equivalent to saying a random sequence will work just as well — an obvious falsehood.
…which are events that happen within an already functioning cell, which already has the specifically sequenced enzymes needed to make liviing organisms thermodynamically feasible.
Once again, this is an allusion to events in the already functioning cell. By any "practical" measure, the cell could not function without the already sequenced enzymes that make its operations thermodynamically possible.
It is amazing how often true believers in abiogenesis fall back on "evidence" from functioning cells to try to bolster the faith. (See also the circularity in Dodge #4.)
But then again, what else could they refer to? The Active Abiogenesis Aether?
Comment by eric — August 7, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
August 7th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
eric wrote:
eric,
Scientists aren't agreeing or disagreeing with Orgel's point. They are ignoring it. If it were a promising path to new developments in biology they would jump on the bandwagon. The burden is on you to prove the relevance of SC in biology. Go ahead and search the Web of Science.
Earlier you wrote:
I don't think you are familiar with the way science is done, eric. Take a look at the leading physics journal Physical Review Letters. The latest full issue of July 30, 2010, has 74 articles. Of these, we have 68 papers reporting new research results, 2 errata, 2 comments on previously written papers, and 2 replies to comments. After taking into account the page count (4 pages per paper, 1 page per comment and reply), we find that communication of new results takes up 98% of the issue's volume, while criticism and rebuttals account for 1.4%.
These numbers are typical. We organized an international conference at our university last week. The format of plenary talks was 45 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for Q&A (17 + 3 minutes for contributed talks). The vast majority of questions were asked to learn further details, rather than to criticize the work presented. Scientists just aren't into debates, eric.
Comment by olegt — August 7, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
August 7th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Figuring that eric probably doesn't have access to the Web of Science, I ran the search for "specified complexity" myself. The search turned up a total of 12 items, of which 6 were in engineering. The remaining 6 are:
* A review of Dembski's book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.
* An article in conference proceedings written by an optical engineer. doi:10.1117/12.611397.
* Two articles in Biology and Philosophy reviewing arguments in the above mentioned book, e.g., doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9040-z.
* Two articles in philosophical journals, e.g., doi:10.1007/s11153-007-9112-2.
Has specified complexity caught on in biology? I don't think so.
Of course one can include variations of the term, e.g., "functional complexity," but I leave this as an exercise to the reader.
Comment by olegt — August 7, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
August 7th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
eric wrote:
Heh, this is the standard God-of-the-gaps argument. Scientists have not figured out how the first cell arose, so it must have been made by a designer resembling humans (but clearly more powerful). Why am I not surprised?
Interesting… You seem to have no objections to increases of "functional" information in genomes of existing organisms. Is that a tacit agreement with my point or do you actually disagree but choose to shift the discussion to the safer ground of a scientific gap? Most ID theorists seem to disagree.
Comment by olegt — August 7, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
August 8th, 2010 at 12:35 am
After hearing Hitchens discuss how abhorrent he thought the mere notion of salvation was in the "four horsemen" vid on youtube, and having the other three sagely nod (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris) as he did so, it has become painfully obvious to me that no amount of evidence, no matter how convincing, would ever be enough for many hyper-skeptics.
The stupidity of that list did make me laugh though.
Comment by Euphrates — August 8, 2010 @ 12:35 am
August 8th, 2010 at 12:39 am
It’s not a matter of terminology and rhetoric but of concepts. The point I have been trying to make is that even though different researchers (for example, non-ID-ist”s Franklin Harold & Robert Shapiro) are using different terminology the underlying concepts are basically the same. You discover that by actually reading the literature (including non-ID OoL literature) not by doing google searches.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 8, 2010 @ 12:39 am