There’s nothing random about evolution.

Posted on November 4, 2015 By

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The misuse of language in order to deceive is one of the central themes in George Orwell’s famous novel Animal Farm. The pigs in the novel outrageously distort the word equal in order to prevent the other animals from perceiving the great inequality present on the farm.

Much like the pigs in Animal Farm, atheists do not shy from such distortions of language to promote their agenda. Indeed, a little digging reveals some of the most prominent arguments in support of atheism to be notably, well….Orwellian.

Doubtlessly the most prominent argument in favor of atheism in the last 150 years has been Darwinian evolution. Since the process of evolution is random (advanced by the random mutation of genes and natural selection of offspring) and purposeless—-so the argument goes—-there is no need to invoke an intelligent creator such as God to explain the origin of life.

Indeed, the real conflict is not between Christianity and evolution. Rather, the real conflict (as the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga points out in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies) is between Christianity and philosophical add-ons to evolutionary theory. Despite atheist rhetoric to the contrary, Christians do not deny evolution since the term evolution only means change over time…when stripped of philosophical add-ons such as the insistence that this change over time is driven by random and purposeless (rather than intelligent and goal driven) processes. Most Christians objecting to evolution are really objecting to evolution with the atheistic philosophical add-ons of randomness and purposelessness.

It is just that an enormous amount of distortion (and outright denial) is necessary to apply the terms random and purposeless to evolution…especially in light of the science which has emerged since the time of Charles Darwin.

Randomness can never be verified

First of all, as Perry Marshall points out in his book Evolution 2.0, it is possible to prove that a pattern is non-random, but there is no mathematical procedure for proving that a pattern is random. Atheists can only assume that genes mutate randomly…because their worldview demands it. But the random mutation hypothesis can never be verified, and therefore it stands in opposition to the scientific method itself.

Marshall cites the renowned mathematician Gregory Chaitin from his paper Randomness and Mathematical Proof:

“Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a limit to what is possible in mathematics.”

Evolution is directed, not random

But the fundamentally unscientific nature of the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is only its first problem. Marshall continues by calling attention to the research which has proven that evolution is clearly NOT random. Scientists such as the famous evolutionary biologist and geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky conducted six decades of research in which fruit flies were exposed to radiation in order to induce the mutation of genes, with the intent of accelerating evolution. But after 60 years of research, and despite the fact that a new generation of fruit flies occurs every 11 days, no new species emerged, or even a new enzyme.  Rather, the only results are what amount to frankenflies, including mutant fruit flies with legs growing out of their heads where their antennae belong.

So, if it is not random, how does change over time (the definition of evolution stripped of its atheistic philosophical add-ons) really happen?

Marshall answers:

“Remember the fruit fly experiments? [Nobel Prize-winning biologist Barbara] McClintock’s experiments were similar. She too used organisms damaged by radiation. She discovered that radiation broke chromosomes and triggered editing systems in real time. Cells would reconstruct the damaged chromosome with another section of radiation-broken genetic material.”

“…Barbara McClintock had discovered that plants possess the ability to recognize that data has been corrupted. Then they repair it with newly activated genome elements, and in the process of repairing the data, the plants can develop new features!”

Random mutation and natural selection is not what drives evolution (as Darwinism insists). Rather, directed processes drive evolution. The directed process mentioned above is known as transposition, and amounts to a cut/copy/paste of genetic information within a cell. The discovery of transposition won Barbara McClintock the Nobel Prize in biology, and her face on a U.S. postage stamp.

And despite the fact that no legitimate biologist denies transposition, Marshall notes, it is noticeably absent from popular presentations of evolution, such as in books by atheistic evolution promoters Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. Scientists with an atheistic agenda do not wish to call attention to directed evolutionary processes such as transposition.

Physicist Amit Goswami echoes Marshall’s point about the directed (as opposed to random and mindless) nature of evolution in his book Creative Evolution: A Physicist’s Resolution Between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Atheistic scientists argue in favor of upward causation, in which elementary particles make atoms, which make molecules, which make living cells, which make the brain, which produces consciousness. According to the upward causation model, then, everything begins with elementary particles, and winds up with consciousness (in human brains), as a result of mindless and random processes working over millions of years. But, as Goswami points out, downward causation (in which a consciousness comes first) is the actual state of affairs:

“The new evidence suggests that certain bacteria, when threatened with mass starvation, accelerate their own mutation rate to evolve to a new species that can survive on the available food (Cairns, Overbaugh, and Miller 1988). This behavior is called directed mutation. Critics of directed mutation point out that under starvation perhaps the mutation rate of all the genes is enhanced, not just the one needed for survival. But even so, the question remains: What enhances the mutation rates? The correct explanation is to see this phenomenon as direct evidence in favor of downward causation (Goswami and Todd 1997) and the causal efficacy of organisms, as also propounded by organismic biologists.”

Mind comes first, matter comes from mind

So what (or rather who) is responsible for this downward causation? Goswami responds that the only answer can be God, in part because an immaterial conscious mind is required to explain the famous “observer effect” in physics. The “observer effect” refers to the conclusion of modern physics that, prior to observation by a conscious observer, particles exist only in an immaterial form known as a possibility wave (or probability wave). It is only after an observation is made by a conscious observer that these possibilities “collapse into actuality,” thereby taking on material form. Readers who find this bizarre or difficult to understand are in good company. Even the world’s most elite physicists are amazed and puzzled by the observer effect. However, it has been repeatedly scientifically verified. [Please click here to watch a video explaining the observer effect.] Goswami writes:

“If the idea of downward causation were an isolated idea invented to solve the special problems of fast-tempo evolution and purposiveness of life, if it were needed nowhere else in science, then it could not be called a scientific idea, end of story. But the intriguing situation is this: The idea of a God as an agent of downward causation has emerged in quantum physics (Goswami 1989, 1991, 1993, 2000, 2002; Stapp 1993; Blood 1993, 2001) as the only legitimate explanation of the famous observer effect. (Readers skeptical about this statement should see these original references, especially Goswami 2002.)”

Downward causation (in which a conscious agent comes first) is no doubt a bizarre (even mind-bending) concept for persons raised in a culture which has deeply entrenched assumptions supporting the upward causation model. But, far from being a fringe concept, downward causation is a virtually undeniable conclusion of modern physics, as Goswami notes.

Physicist Richard Conn Henry from Johns Hopkins University agrees with Goswami that downward causation by God is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from modern physics:

“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” [“Solipsism” is defined as “the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.”]

Indeed, the founder of quantum physics himself, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Planck, was referring to downward causation, in which a conscious mind (read: God) comes first, and produces matter, when he wrote:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Planck also wrote:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Random evolution is mathematically impossible

As if to kick a dead horse, I must call attention to a final nail in the coffin for the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis: It is flat-out mathematically impossible…in addition to being wrong and unscientific. The vast majority of mutations are harmful, and an organism cannot evolve from random mutations with such a state of affairs. Cambridge University physicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle, despite being atheist, admits in his book Mathematics of Evolution:

“The reason why most mutations must be bad is of course that random changes made to any complex structure lead to many more downward steps in the operating efficiency of the structure than to upward steps. How the occasional lucky improvement is to lead to positive evolution is a puzzle that has disturbed many mathematicians.”

Most people intuitively know that unintelligent and random processes do the exact opposite of organize and create, and therefore do not need the assurance of elite physicists and mathematicians. This includes atheistic biologists such as Richard Dawkins, who writes in his book The Blind Watchmaker:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

It is just that intense ideology requires atheist scientists such as Dawkins to ignore their intuition. Regarding this point, and Dawkins’ above comment, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek comment in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and another ardent Darwinist, agrees with Dawkins about the appearance of design. In fact, the appearance of design is so clear he warns that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Crick’s little memo to biologists led Phillip Johnson, author and a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, to observe, “Darwinian biologists must keep repeating that reminder to themselves because otherwise they might become conscious of the reality that is staring them in the face and trying to get their attention.”

Let the pigs on the farms known as academia and the media continue to fool themselves, but don’t let them fool you into believing that words such as random, undirected, and purposeless can be applied to life or evolution.

————————————————————————————-

Regarding downward causation (in which an immaterial conscious mind comes first), the Nobel Prize winning, Harvard University biologist George Wald, writes in his address to the Quantum Biology Symposium titled Life and Mind in the Universe:

“It has occurred to me lately—I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities—that both questions [the origin of mind and the origin of life from nonliving matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals.”

 


29 comments


  1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    1

    Regarding implications of being non random:

    If genetic mutation is not a random event then it is directed by something (and trandposons don’t negate the randomness of mutation).

    You make a good argument for material determinism. If not random then is evolution driven simply by the physical laws of nature? If we know the state of every single material piece of the universe and then, by application of physical law, know the next state, then we can know all future states. Good job!

    Alternately something else – God? – points finger to choose and drive mutation and then I blame God for all cancer, genetic disease, and flu virulence.

    You’ve painted yourself into a corner by putting religious bias in front of science.

    Cheers!


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Young ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Dennis,

      Your view that my argument supports material determinism is patently false. Nancy Pearcey writes in her book Total Truth:

      “…in principle, laws of nature do not give rise to information. Why not? Because laws describe events that are regular, repeatable, and predictable. If you drop a pencil, it will fall. If you put paper into a flame, it will burn. If you mix salt in water, it will dissolve. That’s why the scientific method insists that experiments must be repeatable: Whenever you reproduce the same conditions, you should get the same results, or something is wrong with your experiment. The goal of science is to reduce those regular patterns to mathematical formulas. By contrast, the sequence of letters in a message is irregular and non repeating, which means it cannot be the result of any law-like process.”

      “To illustrate the point, let’s invoke our imaginary Scrabble game… but this time when you organize the letters, you decide to follow a certain formula or rule (an analogy to laws of nature). For example, the formula might require that every time you have a D, it is followed by an E. And every time you have an E, it’s followed by a S, then an I, then a G, and an N. The result would be that every time you started with D, you would get DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN, over and over again. Obviously, if the letters in a real alphabet followed rules like that, you would be limited to spelling only a few words—and you could not convey very much information. The reason a real alphabet works so well is precisely that the letters do not follow rules or formulas or laws. If you know that a word begins with a T, you cannot predict what the next letter will be. With some minor exceptions (in English, q is always fol-lowed by u ), the letters can be combined and recombined in a vast number of different arrangements to form words and sentences.”

      Information scientist Henry Quastler put it best: “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Whenever we trace information back to its source, INVARIABLY, we come back to a conscious mind, not an undirected material process. The irregular and non-repeating nature of the specified complexity in DNA means that it cannot have been accomplished by a law-like process.

      Again, natural laws only produce regular and repeating sequences, such as the below sequence:

      ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC

      But genetic code is very much irregular and non-repeating, such as the below sequence:

      “In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue.”

      Regarding the idea that evolution is driven by “physical laws of nature” (as you put it), Hubert Yockey, in the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, points out how this is mathematically impossible because the information content of natural laws is far too low:

      “The laws of physics and chemistry are much like the rules of a game such as football. The referees see to it that these laws are obeyed but that does not predict the winner of the Super Bowl. There is not enough information in the rules of the game to make that prediction. That is why we play the game. [Mathematician Gregory] Chaitin (1985, 1987a) has examined the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the information content amazingly small.”

      Another excerpt from Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life:

      “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws.” (Yockey 1992).

      Dennis, even if it were possible for physical laws to explain the origin of life, you would be left with needing to explain who or what creates and then enforces physical laws. The theistic explanation is that God enforces natural laws and enacts natural processes. In the theistic model, it is immediately obvious why matter follows natural laws: The same mind that creates matter (God’s mind) also directs it. As Robert Boyle, the founder of modern chemistry, put it:

      “The nature of this or that body is but the law of God prescribed to it [and] to speak properly, a law [is] but a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior.” [italics added]

      Or, as James Joule, the propounder of the first law of thermodynamics, for whom the thermal unit of the “Joule” was named, put it:

      “It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed.”

      Or, as the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans put it in his book The Mysterious Universe:

      “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”

      What answer does the atheistic model provide to the question of how an inanimate thing can be compelled to follow a law? Only various versions of “matter follows laws because it just does.” This is a perfect example of the just-so storytelling that is so very characteristic of atheistic arguments.

      No sir, I am afraid that you are the one who has put their religious bias in front of science. Atheism fits many of the diverse definitions of “religion” present in religious scholarship.

      Scott


  2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    1

    I’ve read two posts now and see the non-random pattern: quote lots of opinion from smart people and call it an air tight argument. While interesting, it’s not an argument and you know what is said about opinions.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Young ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Dennis,

      Careful. Third-party readers of these comments aren’t stupid: They can distinguish between a mere characterization of an argument, on one hand, and a rationally constructed, fact-based rebuttal to an argument, on the other hand. Merely characterizing my argument as just quotes and opinions is a very transparent attempt to avoid having to produce such a rationally constructed, fact-based rebuttal. It seems obvious that this essay was an affront to your apparently atheist ideology, and that you find it offensive.

      Below are a few points that you need to rebut:

      1) There is no way to mathematically demonstrate that a pattern is random, even though there IS a way to demonstrate that a pattern is non-random. This makes the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis unverifiable, and therefore it stands in opposition to the scientific method itself.

      2) The vast majority of mutations are harmful. Since an organism must endure harmful mutations in addition to allegedly beneficial ones, the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis can be mathematically demonstrated to be impossible. To this end, I cited the Cambridge University mathematician and physicist Fred Hoyle, who admits to this point even though he is an atheist.

      You seem to object to me quoting people who support my stance. However, citation of experts is a routine part of rational discourse. Just check any scholarly journal if you don’t believe me.

      3) Evolution has been demonstrated to be a DIRECTED (as opposed to random) process. Directed evolutionary processes such as transposition have been scientifically verified over and over again. No legitimate biologist denies this.

      Scott


  3. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    Kathleen says:

    Great post. Helpful information. I’m approving your membership into the Fellowship of Christian Bloggers.


  4. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    SKL YJD says:

    Scott you ask “What reasoning do you provide to support your claim that “it is delusional or wishful thinking to believe something will prove that creation and God is the answer to life”?
    You also claim ” In no way does it logically follow that something was not designed and built because it can be described scientifically. God is to the universe (and life, etc.) as automotive engineers are to the car.”
    I do not have the time you have to cut and paste from the internet to argue all the other points you raise however I will address these couple of issues you raise from my atheist viewpoint.
    When I read religious claims of a god creator I automatically think of Adam and Eve, dust and a rib. I then just have to ask you how any scientific principles can ever compete or provide evidence of that fascinating story? I am serious, I do not know what your level of belief is in a deity but if you even consider this as a fact or it is remotely possible it is not my job to defend evolution but yours to prove any such god had anything to do with creating anything on this planet.
    It is also quite funny that complicated scientific details over hundreds of years by thousands of scientists can be systematically picked apart by just about anybody because they are real life issues evolving and advancing human knowledge and on the internet right now, yet faith in a deity is based solely on books written by superstitious goat herders thousands of years ago who did not understand why rain came from the sky but their stories are supported by the faithful believers without question.
    One of the most common faults of creationists that you have now used is expressing your creation of life as the building of a car or a mechanical device. How can you compare nuts and bolts to biology, chemistry and the diversity of life on this planet? You cannot think outside of your indoctrination and you are unable to claim you just “don’t know” and this is where we differ. I admit nobody knows including atheists, but I weigh up what is realistic, has supporting evidence and facts whereas you are unable to compromise your faith so you spend countless time desperately trying to disprove scientific expertise or any other field that opposes your world view.


  5. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    SKL YJD says:

    Scott
    You say: “ SKL YJD, you are committing the logical fallacies of Argument By Assertion and Appeal to Authority.”
    I do appeal to authority as my evidence because who else understands the issues better than any of us and I do not see it as a logical fallacy
    You also say “1) Assert that your position is true without providing some sort of logical support “. And 2) “Assure us that it is true because there are many experts who believe in it.”
    Why not? The logical support involves the support of the authority. Whatever our opinions on the finer points of the issues regarding evolution mean absolutely nothing. I have pointed out an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory, as does most of the educated world, therefore I cannot find a more convincing argument to support it and I certainly cannot reject it on the writings from a creationist or any other viewpoint.
    This paragraph I found sums it up, no argument.
    Origin of Species was just voted the most influential academic book of all time. As biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Shared ancestry and adaptation by natural selection are what tie the biological sciences together, give them shape and meaning, and explain why life on Earth became the way it is. Trying to teach biology without evolution would be like trying to teach chemistry without the periodic table of elements: It just doesn’t work.
    By Rachel E. Gross http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/polls_americans_believe_in_evolution_less_in_creationism.single.html


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      SKL YJD,

      You write, “Why not? The logical support involves the support of the authority. Whatever our opinions on the finer points of the issues regarding evolution mean absolutely nothing. I have pointed out an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory, as does most of the educated world, therefore I cannot find a more convincing argument to support it and I certainly cannot reject it on the writings from a creationist or any other viewpoint.”

      Have you read what I wrote before? You are confusing and conflating evolution, on one hand, with the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis, on the other hand. These are not the same thing. Stripped of its atheistic philosophical add-ons, evolution only means change over time. So, of course most of the educated world believes in evolution, because virtually nobody (even the most staunch biblical literalist) denies that living things change over time.

      You need to remember that scientists are human beings who have a variety of motives for believing things. Some of these motives are scientific, but many of them are not. In my essay titled If the Evidence For God Is So Strong, Why Are So Many Smart People Unconvinced?, I cite Lynn Margulis, a biologist who won the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science. In an interview with journalist Susan Mazur (in the book The Altenburg 16), she discusses why Darwinian theory persists, despite the fact that it is hard to rectify with what modern science tells us. She cites wish fulfillment, social momentum, and tribal loyalty as reasons that Darwinism persists within the scientific community despite the fact that it is hard to rectify with modern science:

      Margulis: “If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.”

      Mazur: “So a certain dishonesty set in?”

      Margulis: “No. It was not dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

      Mazur: “But a whole industry grew up.”

      Margulis: “Yes, but people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

      SKL YJD, an argument commits the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority whenever it tries to suggest something to the effect of: “Such and such scientific theory must be true because there are so many scientists who believe it.” I cite scientists all of the time, but when I do so, I always cite the logical reasons behind the views of those who I cite.

      Next, you have not responded to my points regarding the history of science, so I will repeat them yet again: There are many past scientific theories which enjoyed a consensus of support among scientists, but which later turned out to be wrong.

      For example, scientists virtually unanimously believed in “luminiferous ether” until the late 19th century. There are many other examples, such as those that I cited from Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn lists the examples of Aristotelian dynamics (which was superseded by Newtonian physics), phlogistic chemistry (which said that a fire-like element called phlogiston is contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion), and caloric thermodynamics (which said that heat is really a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies).

      You baldly assert that the test of time has verified Darwin’s theory and that there are no credible challenges to it. But then you fail to respond to my citation of the article from Science Magazine titled Did Darwin Get it All Right?, which states that, “The most thorough study yet of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with the most un-Darwinian abruptness after long periods of stability.”

      You have also failed to respond to my points about the much more recent science which shows that evolutionary change is directed, rather than random. Next, you have failed to respond to my point about how mathematicians (not to mention the average Joe on the street) know that positive evolution cannot happen from random mutations when the vast majority of mutations are harmful.

      Lastly, you failed to respond to my point that the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is fundamentally unscientific because it can never be verified. It can be demonstrated that a pattern is non-random, but there is no way to mathematically verify that a pattern is random. To this end, I provided Perry Marshall’s citation of the renowned mathematician Gregory Chaitin from his paperRandomness and Mathematical Proof:

      “Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a limit to what is possible in mathematics.”


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
        0
        SKL YJD says:

        Scott,
        Your claim: “You are confusing and conflating evolution, on one hand, with the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis, on the other hand.”

        I will spell it out. I believe in the evolutionary development of the human species from our closest ancestors the Chimps and Bonobo. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do.

        Regarding the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis; although results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

        You write: “You need to remember that scientists are human beings who have a variety of motives for believing things. Some of these motives are scientific, but many of them are not.”

        This theory is interesting but most with an unscientific view claim Darwin’s aim was to destroy the Christian religion.

        You write: “In my essay titled If the Evidence For God Is So Strong, Why Are So Many Smart People Unconvinced?”

        This is the writing on the wall that you and creationists fail to understand. These many smart people realise the evidence for God is non-existent if you look past the biblical stories and the world’s history of god worship. Religious belief is only a primitive belief for when man understood little about the world.

        You quote Lynn Margulis who cites: “wishfulfillment, social momentum, and tribal loyalty as reasons that Darwinism persists within the scientific community despite the fact that it is hard to rectify with modern science:”

        Ok as esteemed as she is by the scientific communities she is entitled to her opinions and without people of such quality questioning science we would not advance in our knowledge. Regardless of her claims that scientists fall into line just to keep their jobs and your persistence regarding the mathematics it is delusional or wishful thinking to believe something will prove that creation and God is the answer to life. I know you do realize that even if something is random, we can still understand it, and we can still calculate probabilities numerically.

        You quote: “Did Darwin Get it All Right?” from Science Magazine.

        Darwin’s theories have been and will be expanded and tested forever and adjusted or changed when required, He did not get it all right and no pioneering scientist ever does get it all right as you have pointed out with “luminiferous ether” however his basic evolutionary theory has been confirmed and reinforced by many millions of smart scientific and non-scientific people and very unlikely to be ever be disproven.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
          0
          Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          SKL YJD,

          I will copy and paste your comments in bold, and then respond below:

          —— “I will spell it out. I believe in the evolutionary development of the human species from our closest ancestors the Chimps and Bonobo. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do.”

          Yes, we share a large percentage of DNA with chimps and bonobos…no doubt about it. But to suggest that this supports the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is a complete non sequitur (does not follow). Shared DNA could just as easily be interpreted as evidence for a common creator as for a common ancestor. And even if we share common ancestors (which is entirely possible), this does nothing to address the issue of whether or not we have a common creator.

          ——“Regarding the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis; although results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.”

          Here again, you ignore the research done by Barbara McClintock (just as one example) which demonstrates that the directed evolutionary mechanism of transposition causes new adaptive traits. No legitimate biologist denies transposition, and there is no way to argue that this cut/copy/paste repair mechanism (of genetic information within a cell) is random. How could a repair mechanism be alleged to be random? Does your mechanic use random processes to repair your car?

          ——“This is the writing on the wall that you and creationists fail to understand. These many smart people realise the evidence for God is non-existent if you look past the biblical stories and the world’s history of god worship. Religious belief is only a primitive belief for when man understood little about the world.”

          In no way does it logically follow that something was not designed and built because it can be described scientifically. God is to the universe (and life, etc.) as automotive engineers are to the car.

          Your above comment commits the same category error that is so pervasive within atheist thought, because it confuses different categories of causation. The two statements below commit the same category error:

          “Life was not created by God, but rather by natural processes.”

          “Automobiles are not created by people, but rather by manufacturing processes.”

          Further, as I have demonstrated in my post titled Quotes About God to Consider…If You Think Science Leads to Atheism, many of the most important scientific figures of all time were believers in God. This would include Isaac Newton (an outspoken Christian) and Albert Einstein (a deist)….among many others. So it is not enough to merely argue that atheism must be true because a lot of smart people believe it.

          ——-You quote Lynn Margulis who cites: “wishfulfillment, social momentum, and tribal loyalty as reasons that Darwinism persists within the scientific community despite the fact that it is hard to rectify with modern science:”

          ——-Ok as esteemed as she is by the scientific communities she is entitled to her opinions and without people of such quality questioning science we would not advance in our knowledge. Regardless of her claims that scientists fall into line just to keep their jobs and your persistence regarding the mathematics it is delusional or wishful thinking to believe something will prove that creation and God is the answer to life. I know you do realize that even if something is random, we can still understand it, and we can still calculate probabilities numerically.

          The late great Harvard University paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould agrees with Margulis’ point about scientists believing things for cultural and ideological (as opposed to scientific) reasons. He wrote:

          “Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”

          The Harvard University geneticist Richard C. Lewontin admitted to the cultural context of atheism in 1997, in reference to defending Darwinism in a debate:

          “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

          In a similar light, Nancy Pearcey notes in her essay How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down:

          “The media paints the evolution controversy in terms of science versus religion. But it is much more accurate to say it is worldview versus worldview, philosophy versus philosophy…”

          “Interestingly, a few evolutionists do acknowledge the point. Michael Ruse made a famous admission at the 1993 symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ‘Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism,’ he said—that is, it is a philosophy, not just facts. He went on: ‘Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’ Ruse’s colleagues responded with shocked silence and afterward one of them, Arthur Shapiro, wrote a commentary titled, ‘Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?’”

          “But, ironically, in the process, Shapiro himself conceded that ‘there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science,’ He went on: ‘Darwinism is a philosophical preference, if by that we mean we choose to discuss the material universe in terms of material processes accessible by material operations.'”

          What reasoning do you provide to support your claim that “it is delusional or wishful thinking to believe something will prove that creation and God is the answer to life”? This is a bald assertion, and unless you back it up with a logically constructed argument, you are committing the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion.

          I will lead by example and give even more evidence to support my claim that God created life: DNA is a code (it uses symbolic representation), and codes can only be created by an intelligence. As information scientist Henry Quastler puts it, “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Perry Marshall writes in Evolution 2.0:

          Rutgers University professor Sungchul Ji’s excellent paper “The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics” starts off, “Biologic systems and processes cannot be fully accounted for in terms of the principles and laws of physics and chemistry alone, but they require in addition the principles of semiotics— the science of symbols and signs, including linguistics.”

          Ji identifies 13 characteristics of human language. DNA shares 10 of them. Cells edit DNA. They also communicate with each other and literally speak a language he called “cellese,” described as “a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which encode, act as signs for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes.” This comparison between cell language and human language is not a loosey-goosey analogy; it’s formal and literal. Human language and cell language both employ multilayered symbols.

          Dr. Ji explains this similarity in his paper: “Bacterial chemical conversations also include assignment of contextual meaning to words and sentences (semantic) and conduction of dialogue (pragmatic)— the fundamental aspects of linguistic communication.” This is true of genetic material. Signals between cells do this as well.

          Physicist and information theorist Hubert Yockey, writing in Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life in 2005, took great pains to demonstrate that terms like translation and code are literal, not metaphoric: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies”. He says this on page 6, because this fact is fundamental to everything in his book that follows.

          —–Darwin’s theories have been and will be expanded and tested forever and adjusted or changed when required, He did not get it all right and no pioneering scientist ever does get it all right as you have pointed out with “luminiferous ether” however his basic evolutionary theory has been confirmed and reinforced by many millions of smart scientific and non-scientific people and very unlikely to be ever be disproven.

          I eagerly await your specific evidence which demonstrates that the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis has been confirmed an reinforced. As I said before, it should be very very easy for you to produce this evidence in an age of internet search engines. And you have, yet again, ignored my point that the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis can never be verified because there is no mathematical procedure for verifying that a pattern is random.

          You are, again, committing the logical fallacies of Argument by Assertion and Appeal to Authority. I cite authorities (scientists) all the time. But when I do, I cite the evidence and logical arguments behind the authority opinion. Without this supporting evidence and logic, citing expert opinion commits the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


  6. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    SKL YJD says:

    Gerry and Scott
    What is so unbelievable that either a large meteorite impacted on earth from another part of the universe with life forms already on it or the visitation of actual intelligent life from a spaceship.
    If many millions of humans are going to believe through faith alone in deities invented thousands of years ago and claimed by man to have created the world with many worshippers committing crimes in the name of their religion, I think the seeding of earth from an alien source is far more creditable than creationism.


  7. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    SKL YJD says:

    Scott,
    You say: “Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection) is just a more up-to-date example of a such a theory which is wrong, but which scientists continue to work with.”
    Sure they are the first to admit they do not know all the answers yet nobody can say it is wrong, far from it in fact. This is not a conspiracy because the basics of Darwin’s theory has the evidence to support it due to many years of theoretical testing and archaeological evidence. They will always pursue new evidence and changes will happen over time just as it has always done in science.
    You also quote: “Kuhn notes that scientists do not abandon a theory or scientific paradigm the moment that they discover that it is inadequate or outright wrong. Rather, they continue working with it until something better comes along”.
    That has to be completely wrong because the costs involved in research and development are usually major. Scientists will not blindly go nowhere with research because they always apply the appropriate procedures and tests in an effort to also disprove their own theories and if this happens they adjust their research techniques accordingly until they achieve results to build on with what they already know and then move on from there.
    Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was a brilliant man but you are keen to compare his techniques and systems to scientists of the 21 century and emphasis his failure. This is hardly fair considering the advantage we have today over all previous scientists. As time and science advances it provides the advantage every time to the next generation of scientists.
    Whatever argument you may have against evolution it is here to stay. This is because every aspect of it has been and will be tested again and again by many people of many different sciences. The objective and results however will always be the same as every other scientific achievement and that will be the revealing of more facts. This is in many ways driven because of disagreement held by other scientists, sceptics and people with ideological beliefs.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      SLY YJD,

      You write, “The basics of Darwin’s theory has the evidence to support it due to many years of theoretical testing and archaeological evidence.”

      What specific theoretical testing and archaeological evidence do you cite? Vague references to testing and evidence are of no value. You must provide specifics.

      In There’s Nothing Random About Evolution, I cited the 60 years of research with fruit flies, which failed to produce a new species or even a new enzyme (using random mutation) despite the fact that a new generation of fruit flies emerges every 11 days.

      Regarding the archeological evidence for Darwinism, it is very very much lacking. Science magazine (which is probably the most respected, peer-reviewed science journal) states in an article titled Did Darwin Get It All Right? that, “The most thorough study yet of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with the most un-Darwinian abruptness after long periods of stability.” (click here)

      This very much conflicts with what Darwin predicted: slow and gradual evolution. Further, the rapid (as opposed to gradual) progress of evolution is very much consistent with what modern science has taught us about the directed (as opposed to random) nature of evolutionary mechanisms…such as the evolutionary mechanism known as “transposition” that I cited in the essay.

      No, scientists will not “blindly go nowhere with research,” as you put it. This is why they continue working with a scientific model (or paradigm) that has failed. Going nowhere blindly is what would happen if scientists threw out a paradigm that has failed and tried to work with no paradigm whatsoever.

      You suggest that I am making arguments “against evolution.” But, here, you confuse and conflate evolution (change over time) with Darwinism (evolution with the atheistic philosophical add-ons of randomness and purposelessness).

      Scott


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
        0
        SKL YJD says:

        Scott.
        You ask for specific theoretical testing. The real testing is the time and input of many intelligent scientists since Darwin’s evolutionary theory was revealed in the mid 1800’s. That is the test of time and the best testimony on its own, without a creditable challenge to the basic evolutionary principles. It is a fact that certain aspects of evolution are always going to be criticised and rejected, however the core principle of evolution is sound.

        It is all very well using fruit flies or some other solidarity examples to refute evolutionary principles, but this like many others in context are minor issues and obviously explainable as it is not serious enough to have any scientists in disarray.

        I can go to web sites about evolution and cut and paste whatever I like to make my case, however what is more convincing is the fact that evolution has been modified, tested and investigated for many years and now has a hold firmer than ever. It is taught in all schools and universities and has remained uncontroversial among mainstream biologists and the majority of scientists for a century and remains so today. I understand there must be a good reason for this.


        1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
          0
          John says:

          Can you cite a single recorded observation of a positive mutation resulting in a new and sistinct kind of life form. An adaptation, such as Darwin ‘s finches, is not sufficient to support the macroevolution required to support his theories. In addition to the fact that macroevolution is not observable, testable, or repeatable, severely damages it’s scientific credibility. Furthermore, many experiments have been published that directly contradict the evolutionary model, such as distinct Ecoli bacteria coexisting in control maintaining homeostasis without resulting in the natural selection upon which Darwin pinned the entirety of his research.


        2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
          0
          Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

          SKL YJD,

          You need to be very careful how much you accept on authority, since the history of science shows so many examples in which scientists virtually unanimously accepted theories that later turned out to be wrong. For example, scientists virtually unanimously believed in “luminiferous ether” until the late 19th century. (Click here to read about it). There are many other examples, such as those that I cited from Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn cites the examples of Aristotelian dynamics (which was superseded by Newtonian physics), phlogistic chemistry (which said that a fire-like element called phlogiston is contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion), and caloric thermodynamics (which said that heat is really a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies).

          You baldly assert that the test of time has verified Darwin’s theory and that there are no credible challenges to it. But then you fail to respond to my citation of the article from Science Magazine titled Did Darwin Get it All Right?, which states that, “The most thorough study yet of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with the most un-Darwinian abruptness after long periods of stability.”

          You have also failed to respond to my points about the much more recent science which shows that evolutionary change is directed, rather than random. Next, you have failed to respond to my point about how mathematicians (not to mention the average Joe on the street) know that positive evolution cannot happen from random mutations when the vast majority of mutations are harmful.

          Lastly, you failed to respond to my point that the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is fundamentally unscientific because it can never be verified. It can be demonstrated that a pattern is non-random, but there is no way to mathematically verify that a pattern is random. To this end, I provided Perry Marshall’s citation of the renowned mathematician Gregory Chaitin from his paper Randomness and Mathematical Proof:

          “Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a limit to what is possible in mathematics.”

          SKL YJD, you are committing the logical fallacies of Argument By Assertion and Appeal to Authority. Put another way, you cannot merely:

          1) Assert that your position is true without providing some sort of logical support and,
          2) Assure us that it is true because there are many experts who believe in it.

          In an age of internet search engines, you should be able to easily produce the “theoretical testing and archeological evidence” which you say supports Darwin’s theory.

          Scott


  8. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    SKL YJD says:

    Because I am not a world renown scientist I thought you should read what Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins say and supported by about 97% of associated scientists in these fields.

    As Professor Cox explains, “natural selection is non-random. The combination of random mutations and non-random selection of those mutations is the engine of evolution, the engine that adapts an organism to its environment, leading to the whole wonderful panoply of life.” As summarised by Richard Dawkins: “Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators”.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      SKL YJD,

      I do not dispute that the percentage of biologists who endorse the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is very high. I am not sure if the 97% figure is true, but for the sake of discussion, I will just go ahead and accept it.

      It is just that scientific consensus by itself is of no value whatsoever. As I discuss in my essay titled The Mythology of Atheism, the history of science if full of examples in which a theory enjoyed a consensus (or near-consensus) acceptance among scientists, and yet was later discovered to be wrong. Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection) is just a more up-to-date example of a such a theory which is wrong, but which scientists continue to work with.

      In The Mythology of Atheism, I cite Thomas Kuhn from his landmark work on the history, philosophy, and sociology of science titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn notes that scientists do not abandon a theory or scientific paradigm the moment that they discover that it is inadequate or outright wrong. Rather, they continue working with it until something better comes along, because science cannot work in an environment in which there is no agreed upon theoretical framework to build upon. Science is a collaborative effort, and requires an agreed upon theoretical framework.

      Regarding scientific theories which once enjoyed consensus acceptance (or nearly so), but were later discovered to be false or inadequate, Kuhn cites the examples of Aristotelian dynamics (which was superseded by Newtonian physics), phlogistic chemistry (which said that a fire-like element called phlogiston is contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion), and caloric thermodynamics (which said that heat is really a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies). As Kuhn notes, these theories were regarded as “science” in their day, but are regarded as “error” and “superstition” today.

      In The Mythology of Atheism, I also cite the elite physicists Paul Davies and John Gribbin from their book The Matter Myth, in which they discuss classic examples of scientific theories which once enjoyed a consensus acceptance among scientists, but which were later discovered to be wrong:

      “A classic example concerns the ‘luminiferous ether.’ When James Clerk Maxwell showed that light is an electromagnetic wave, it seemed obvious that this wave had to have a medium of some sort through which to propagate. After all, other known waves travel through something. Sound waves, for example, travel through the air; water waves travel across the surface of lakes and oceans. Because light, which Maxwell discovered is a form of electromagnetic wave, can reach us from the Sun and stars, across seemingly empty space, it was proposed that space is actually filled with an intangible substance, the ether, in which these waves could travel.”

      “So sure were physicists of the existence of the ether that ambitious experiments were mounted to measure the speed with which the Earth moves through it. Alas, the experiments showed conclusively that the ether does not exist.”

      “…For nineteenth-century physicists, however, the ether was still very real.”

      The random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is the “science” of today, but is currently undergoing what Thomas Kuhn would call “paradigm collapse.” It is on the verge of becoming the mythology of tomorrow, much like luminiferous ether, phlogistic chemistry, and caloric thermodynamics. An excellent window into this reality exists in The Altenburg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry. This book describes a secret meeting (the public and media were barred) in which 16 elite biologists and geneticists met in Altenburg, Austria to discuss setting up a framework for “post-Darwinian research.”

      In this book, Oxford University and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Professor of Biology Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) discusses the persistence of neo-Darwinian theory, despite its deteriorating scientific basis, with journalist Susan Mazur:

      Margulis: “If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.”

      Mazur: “So a certain dishonesty set in?”

      Margulis: “No. It was not dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

      Mazur: “But a whole industry grew up.”

      Margulis: “Yes, but people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”

      The late great Harvard University paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould commented that:

      “Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”

      There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a deeply entrenched cultural context supporting the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis amongst current day biologists. The scientific consensus that the random mutation evolutionary hypothesis enjoys is actually better characterized as an ideological consensus among scientists.

      SKL YJD, my point is that you cannot merely cite scientific consensus without also providing a logically constructed argument to support your stance. The random mutation evolutionary hypothesis is:

      1) Unscientific because it is unverifiable: There is no mathematical procedure for verifying that a pattern is random.

      2) Has been shown to be wrong in light of discoveries that show that evolution is DIRECTED.

      3) Mathematically impossible because the vast majority of mutations are harmful. To this end, I cited the Cambridge University mathematician and physicist Fred Hoyle. However, one does not need the assurance of an elite mathematician to realize that positive evolution cannot occur in an environment in which the vast majority of mutations are harmful to an organism.

      Scott


  9. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    daniel clausen says:

    Well constructed argumentation Scott – it seems to me that everything can be distilled into essentially two world views and ultimately each and every one of us must decide where we belong; either mind came from matter (atheism) or matter came from mind (theism). As alluded to, both are belief systems or “religions” of sorts requiring rational thought and objective examination of the evidence, of which there is a preponderance! Anecdotes, preconceived bias and emotive name-calling, however strongly held, won’t get you there.


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Youngren ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Thanks Dan. Yes, it boils down to two basic worldviews, as you point out. Regarding this point, below is an excerpt from my essay titled, God Is Real: Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism:

      Stephen C. Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University. In this book, he reveals the following:

      “Since the time of the ancient Greeks, there have been two basic pictures of ultimate reality among Western intellectuals, what Germans call a Weltanschauung, or worldview. According to one worldview, mind is the primary or ultimate reality. On this view, material reality either issues from a preexisting mind, or it is shaped by a preexistent intelligence, or both…This view of reality is often called idealism to indicate that ideas come first and matter comes later. Theism is the version of idealism that holds that God is the source of the ideas that gave rise to and shaped the material world.”

      “The opposite view holds that the physical universe or nature is the ultimate reality. In this view, either matter or energy (or both) are the things from which everything else comes. They are self-existent and do not need to be created or shaped by mind….In this view matter comes first, and conscious mind arrives on the scene much later and only then as a by-product of material processes and undirected evolutionary change. This worldview is called naturalism or materialism.”

      The matter-first view is known as “materialism” or “naturalism,” and corresponds to what Goswami titles upward causation in this essay. Conversely, the mind-first view corresponds to what Goswami refers to as downward causation in this essay.

      But as I point out in God Is Real: Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism, the upward causation model is impossible to rectify with the insights of modern physics. I also point out in There’s Nothing Random About Evolution that downward causation is necessary to explain what we know about the directed processes discovered by modern biology.

      Scott


      1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
        0
        Gerry De naro says:

        I would suggest that materialism as a worldview is totally flawed. Atheism for centuries rejected Creation i.e. an ultimate beginning for all time, matter and space. Of course you will rarely hear an atheist proclaim he is a methodological naturalist or a reduction-materialist, since he would have to defend such a belief. The idea of matter existing eternally into the past is by definition, a tenet of materialism. nothing physical could exist now if some “thing” hasn’t existed forever.
        One is forced to choose between Creation (Gen1:1) and an infinite regress of past physical events. But actual infinites do not exist in nature. As Dave Hilbert observes “its merely an idea.” Now we have the likes of Hawking proclaiming “b/c of laws like gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing”. Such are the absurdities some sceptics must resort to, when the find the idea of an absolute beginning abhorrent to a godless worldview.
        I would assert evolution has nothing at all to do with disproving CREATION . The latter is proven by the finitude of past time. Creation i.e. how this universe came into existence in the finite past- 14 billion yrs ago. Theism is the only plausible explanation for WHY we have an awe-inspiring, ABSTRACT law-abiding, rationally INTELLIGIBLE, life supporting universe . Evolution apparently started some 1-2billion years ago, long after creation. I’m quite happy to accept “God created man from the dust of the earth”. I’d just be happy to accept the “how” of evolutionary processes, if like dinosaurs, we had more than a few skulls and bones in museums around the world. A few odd skulls and impressive drawings really proves nothing.


  10. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    Ron Mitchell says:

    … A short definition of Darwinian Evolution:

    Evolution: unknown chemicals in the primordial past, through unknown processes which no longer exist, somehow produced unknown life forms which are not to be found but through unknown reproduction methods could have possibly spawned new life in an unknown atmospheric composition in an unknown oceanic soup completed at an unknown place and time.

    What’s so hard to believe about that?


    1. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      K.A. Woodson says:

      That’s not evolution. You’re describing (and not accurately) abiogenisys


    2. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
      0
      Scott Young ( User Karma: 43 ) says:

      Ha! I love it!! Don’t forget the aliens-brought-life-to-Earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life (known as “directed panspermia”). This explanation has been supported by extremely prominent atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, and Fred Hoyle. Click here to read about Hoyle, Orgel, and Crick’s endorsement of the hypothesis.

      And click here to watch Richard Dawkins endorsing the hypothesis in an interview.


  11. Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/godevide/public_html/wp-content/plugins/comment-popularity/inc/class-comment-popularity.php on line 354
    0
    Gerry De naro says:

    Hi Steve,
    Evolution no more denies the need for a creative mind behind the universe than the discovery of gravity did for Galileo and Einstein. Atheists often in ignorance or by ‘design’ (pardon the pun) like to think that evolution explains how life came from non-life and even how the universe came into existence a finite time ago. They ignore or accept a priori the origin and existence of all the abstract laws written into the very fabric of nature that make life not only possible but inevitable.
    The most compelling evidence for Creation and thus a Creator (Gen 1:1) is the finitude of the past as proven by the impossibility of an infinite regression of past finite physical events.(abiogenesis/evolution?). What did Dave Hilbert say about the infinite in nature exists only as an idea?)
    Another problem for those who speculate random genetic errors is they assume that eventually an infinite number of such mutations will result in a favourable one. When a scientist does experiments with a number of variables he can sequentially rule out certain combinations of parameters that don’t work. Unguided processes could repeat such failed experiments any number of times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *