Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Bradski:

So? What’s wrong with mom and apple pie? All things are, if we’re privy to sufficient precursor information, predictable. All things. Actually, you should be telling the pro-ID’er what things are unpredictable. But even then, providing there is some semblance of reasonable logicality to the claim, even the unpredictable is predictable.

Why not?

Good idea! When we say that that a “theory makes predictions,” we actually mean that a theory makes selectable predictions. In other words, the scientist can select the predictable outcome, based upon a proper and diligent and systematic dialectical inquiry.

The point is, without some measure of design built in, you wouldn’t know that.

Ah. There’s the rub! “Scientific perspective!” I wonder how early man made it all the way through to the Enlightenment?

Actually, re-read the post he is addressing, then, re-read Tony’s response. They are, as he likes to say, “irrefutable!” Tony is always inviting refutation. If you see Tony introduce a Red Herring, by all means, point it out and we can discuss it.

Not to denigrate from anything Buffalo has stated, my question is, "Why must everything of ‘truth value’ align with your definition of (rigorous) science?

By all means, do.

Thanks for your support, jd. It’s important to explain I’m not a lone wolf isolated from the rest of the pack!

 

[tonyrey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t your conclusion of bad design here assume that the “finger bones” left behind in the whale are in fact useless, when perhaps they might be designed to be useful for further evolution of the whale into some other creature later on?

That might be the problem with entering into the middle of the story and making blanket statements about the utility of facts found there without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and the future.

Facts taken out of context are very often misleading. Even if some features are useless it certainly doesn’t follow that the entire process is purposeless. It is necessary to prove **most **features are useless to achieve that goal…

 

[ReapReason]

I haven’t stated or implied that natural evolution and purpose are mutually exclusive! They are mutually exclusive only if evolution is regarded as explicable **entirely **in terms of natural causes.

Metaphysically speaking, the universe and its powers are not explicable in terms of natural events. However, in the context of that which is “physical”, it is entirely possible that the development of the universe is explicable, in a functional sense, in terms of physical laws. This is only saying that things develop according to the intrinsic tendencies of physical forms. But what that actually means metaphysically speaking will depend on what kind of explanation you are talking about. Epistemological context is very important when discussing what it means to say that you have an explanation of something. Science simply describes physical events through the use of measurement and experiment. It does not argue that “physical laws” (the behaviour and quality of physical events) are entirely explicable in terms of physics. It merely recognises that there is such a thing as “nature”, and that nature develops or evolves according to the natures or powers of secondary causes. Science does not say that physics actually creates the natural powers intrinsic to physical forms.

 

[Bradski]

Look at the photo, if you can ignore the smiling skeleton, you’ll see fingers, - finger bones on the whales flipper/arm. Whales have flippers and do not need fingers…

The fingers might let the whale 1. support the ‘flipper’ when moving it through the water.
2. might allow fine-tuning the shape of the flipper for delicate changes or maneuvers.

Let me know when you’ve made your mind up.

I haven’t stated or implied that natural evolution and purpose are mutually exclusive! They are mutually exclusive only if evolution is regarded as explicable **entirely **in terms of natural causes.

That’s reasonable enough. And thanks for the previous post that you made that explained that in more detail. Not to be sarcastic, but there’s now some meat on the bones of your argument.

So as you say, evolution is OK in itself, but if it’s entirely natural, then there is no purpose. So for there to be purpose, you need evidence of design. Which is what, for example, Behe is trying to show. And you must realise at this point that all your eggs are in one basket. If Behe is wrong, then your premise is wrong (at least as far as has been shown to this point).

Now he is using the scientific method to show scientifically that there is indeed evidence for such. But there seems to be doubt about this. As JD asks:

Not to denigrate from anything Buffalo has stated, my question is, "Why must everything of ‘truth value’ align with your definition of (rigorous) science?

Well, this is because Behe is operating* within* science. He is not making a philosophical argument, he is making a scientific one. One, admittedly, that will have philosophical implications, but we will have to deal with those after we have discovered if his scientific argument stands up. So the ‘truth vale’ of Behe’s argument must be a scientific one.

And it has been shown on many occasions that it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The most damning, as I have already shown, is that Muller has pointed out, many years ago, that to view something as irreducibly complex without knowing the full history of how the structure was formed is wrong, because eventually: ‘the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary’.

What he is saying echoes almost exactly that posted by Peter (my emphasis):

That might be the problem with entering into the middle of the story and making blanket statements about the utility of facts found there without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and the future.

In other words, you can’t categorically state that something is irreducibly complex ‘without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and the future.’

 

[pig]

Let me know when you’ve made your mind up.

Whales don’t need fingers because they have flippers but they can use finger bones in their flippers. So the finger bones stay put, it is efficient and economical to leave them because they work presumably.
But, you want to believe a whale evolved naturally by exposure to the sea. Like a cow will become a pilot-whale by gradually eating seaweed on the seashore.
I argue that its a pretty silly idea. Because it requires transitional forms continuously adding a tiny bit more over - well, how long a period, you tell me.
The world should consist of almost continuous transitional forms with only brief intervals of static designs, however the exact opposite is in fact true.
And for short term, well, probably almost instant design changes, like a four legged amphibious creature to change into a no legged, two-flippered creature without any actual transitional forms found in the ground at all, that requires either an intercessor of some sort with new information for a new design or else the creature always had all of this information available from the beginning.

 

[tonyrey]

*I haven’t stated or implied that natural evolution and purpose are mutually exclusive! They are mutually exclusive only if evolution is regarded as explicable **entirely ***

Thanks, Brad, for your reasonable post.

So as you say, evolution is OK in itself, but if it’s entirely natural, then there is no purpose. So for there to be purpose, you need evidence of design. Which is what, for example, Behe is trying to show. And you must realise at this point that all your eggs are in one basket. If Behe is wrong, then your premise is wrong (at least as far as has been shown to this point).

Behe’s egg isn’t even in my basket. I have already produced substantial evidence for Design regardless of whether his egg is fertile!

Now he is using the scientific method to show scientifically that there is indeed evidence for such. But there seems to be doubt about this. As JD asks:
*

Not to denigrate from anything Buffalo has stated, my question is, "Why must everything of ‘truth value’ align with your definition of (rigorous) science?

Well, this is because Behe is operating* within* science. He is not making a philosophical argument, he is making a scientific one. One, admittedly, that will have philosophical implications, but we will have to deal with those after we have discovered if his scientific argument stands up. So the ‘truth value’ of Behe’s argument must be a scientific one.

And it has been shown on many occasions that it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The most damning, as I have already shown, is that Muller has pointed out, many years ago, that to view something as irreducibly complex without knowing the full history of how the structure was formed is wrong, because eventually: ‘the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary’.

“may” is not a solid objection to any explanation. It could be used to reject even well-established theories.

What he is saying echoes almost exactly that posted by Peter (my emphasis):

That might be the problem with entering into the middle of the story and making blanket statements about the utility of facts found there without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and

• the future.

In other words, you can’t categorically state that something is irreducibly complex ‘without having the complete picture of how they might relate to the past and the future.’

Again this argument could be applied to all explanations. The sheer complexity of the universe makes it impossible to rule out other factors.

Scientific explanations in particular apply to the future only on the basis of the principle of induction, i.e. that future events will be similar to those of the past and present. This is a philosophical principle based on the evidence for order… and Design. In a purposeless universe - in which the future has no significance - there is no reason why the future should be similar to the past.

If you reject Design you have to pay the price for abandoning the primacy of reason. Camus and Sartre took it to its logical conclusion of absurdity.

 

[tonyrey]

Whales don’t need fingers because they have flippers but they can use finger bones in their flippers. So the finger bones stay put, it is efficient and economical to leave them because they work presumably.
But, you want to believe a whale evolved naturally by exposure to the sea. Like a cow will become a pilot-whale by gradually eating seaweed on the seashore.
I argue that its a pretty silly idea. Because it requires transitional forms continuously adding a tiny bit more over - well, how long a period, you tell me.
The world should consist of almost continuous transitional forms with only brief intervals of static designs, however the exact opposite is in fact true.
And for short term, well, probably almost instant design changes, like a four legged amphibious creature to change into a no legged, two-flippered creature without any actual transitional forms found in the ground at all, that requires either an intercessor of some sort with new information for a new design or else the creature always had all of this information available from the beginning.

The fatal flaw in the “environment-shapes-everything” theory is that - unlike cogs in a machine - each individual make its own original contribution to its development by adapting itself (like a dog born without front legs).

 

[Bradski]

Like a cow will become a pilot-whale by gradually eating seaweed on the seashore. I argue that its a pretty silly idea.

I don’t think you’d be alone in that.

The world should consist of almost continuous transitional forms

Pig, you need to read up a little on evolution. You don’t have to believe it or accept it but if you’re going to argue against it you’ll need to understand it. There are indeed what you might consider transitional forms (there are fish with lungs) but you’re heading towards crocaduck territory. You’ll be quoting BananaMan next…

Again this argument could be applied to all explanations. The sheer complexity of the universe makes it impossible to rule out other factors.

Indeed. So you can’t rule out Muller’s explanation. Behe is saying that you can’t remove one component of a structure without the whole structure failing. He is then saying that the only explanation is design. What he is actually saying is that he personally can’t think of any other reason.

If you point out Muller’s explanation to him and ask: ‘Is it possible that his explanation is correct?’ the only credible answer to that is ‘Yes’. As you said yourself: ‘the sheer complexity of the universe makes it impossible to rule out other factors’ and Mullers explanation is a very long way from being complex. In fact, it’s blazingly simple. He has proffered a very simple explanation entirely due to natural cuases.

If you don’t want to accept it and prefer to believe in design, then so be it.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed. So you can’t rule out Muller’s explanation. Behe is saying that you can’t remove one component of a structure without the whole structure failing. He is then saying that the only explanation is design. What he is actually saying is that he personally can’t think of any other reason.

I don’t rule out any explanation but select the one which corresponds to the power of reason, the intelligibility of the universe and the fact that all reasonable people live as if life is valuable, purposeful and meaningful.

If you point out Muller’s explanation to him and ask: ‘Is it possible that his explanation is correct?’ the only credible answer to that is ‘Yes’. As you said yourself: ‘the sheer complexity of the universe makes it impossible to rule out other factors’ and Mullers explanation is a very long way from being complex. In fact, it’s blazingly simple. He has proffered a very simple explanation entirely due to natural causes.

It is blazingly simplistic and inadequate in its failure to correspond to the facts just stated. Do you really believe the explanation that everything is due to natural causes is entirely due to natural causes?!

If you don’t want to accept it and prefer to believe in design, then so be it.

It is not a question of “wanting” but of choosing the most cogent explanation which isn’t circular…

 

[Bradski]

I don’t rule out any explanation but select the one which corresponds to the power of reason, the intelligibility of the universe and the fact that all reasonable people live as if life is valuable, purposeful and meaningful.

Then that’s all good. We each have to make the choice we feel best fits the facts. I actually don’t rule out design either. I cannot, and will not, at any time say that an Intelligent Designer isn’t involved.

If Behe says: ‘I appreciate that there are possibly different reasons how this could have happened but I’m strongly suggesting that it was the work of an Intelligent Designer’, then that’s a statement with which I will not argue.

But if he says: ‘This is the ONLY way this could have happened and therefore it was the work of an Intelligent Designer’, then he is, quite simply, wrong.

As you quite rightly said yourself: ‘I don’t rule out any explanation…’ which is the sensible course of action. But Behe is not following your advice. He is discounting all explanations except his own.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Take this quote from Nahmanides’ commentary on the Torah, drawn strictly from the text of Genesis :
*
"…At the briefest instant following creation, all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."*

Sound familiar?

Having read that, ponder the fact that this was written sometime in the 13th century.

Ya know, I’ve brought this point up alot on these forums, and it’s a point on which I’ve never received a skeptical response. Any takers here?

Because I, for one, take this as pretty good evidence not only for design, but the identity of the designer. That a religious tradition which predates the Big Bang theory (and modern science altogether) by millenia describes the origin and development of our universe in pretty much identical terms is a fact that demands consideration.

 

[atheistgirl]

That a religious tradition which predates the Big Bang theory (and modern science altogether) by millenia describes the origin and development of our universe in pretty much identical terms is a fact that demands consideration.

Just a hypothesis born from the human mind. Minds can come up with similar ideas, even centuries apart

Sarah x

 

[prodigalson2011]

Just a hypothesis born from the human mind. Minds can come up with similar ideas, even centuries apart

Sarah x

That seems a bit of a stretch. This isn’t just some “idea.” This is the genesis of the universe itself. This is a matter of science confirming the tenets of an ancient religious text whose authors had no understanding of physics.

And, anyway, it would be erroneous to say that it’s simply a case of minds coming up with similar ideas, because modern science didn’t just “come up with the idea.” Physicists didn’t say, “Hey, maybe the universe started as a tiny speck of condensed energy that expanded and condensed into all the matter that makes up everything that has ever existed.” That conclusion was reached via centuries upon centuries of rigorous scientific research. The idea that the universe was expanding from a singularity was deduced from centuries’ worth of ridiculously complex mathematical calculations, corrections, reformulations. It wasn’t just some “hunch” they came up with. The Jews, on the other hand, described it perfectly in one shot before science, as we know it, even existed.

That’s like saying that someone, 3000 years ago, might have just “had the idea” of how to build a space ship.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That seems a bit of a stretch. This isn’t just some “idea.” This is the genesis of the universe itself. This is a matter of science confirming the tenets of an ancient religious text whose authors had no understanding of physics.

Nor is it a case of minds coming up with similar ideas. Physicists didn’t just say, “Hey, maybe the universe started as a tiny speck of condensed energy that expanded and condensed into all the matter that makes up everything that has ever existed.” That conclusion was reached via centuries upon centuries of rigorous scientific research. The idea that the universe was expanding was deduced by ridiculously complex mathematical calculations, corrections, reformulations. It wasn’t just some “hunch” they came up with. The Jews, on the other hand, described it perfectly in one shot before science, as we know it, even existed.

That’s like saying that someone, 3000 years ago, might have just “had the idea” of how to build a space ship.

To say nothing of the fact that the consensus view among scientists, philosophers and theologians was the infinitely enduring nature of matter. That matter could not be created or destroyed was considered as certain as any idea could be.

Almost as unthinkable as, say, God becoming a man!

 

[ReapReason]

That seems a bit of a stretch. This isn’t just some “idea.” This is the genesis of the universe itself. This is a matter of science confirming the tenets of an ancient religious text whose authors had no understanding of physics.

And, anyway, it would be erroneous to say that it’s simply a case of minds coming up with similar ideas, because modern science didn’t just “come up with the idea.” Physicists didn’t say, “Hey, maybe the universe started as a tiny speck of condensed energy that expanded and condensed into all the matter that makes up everything that has ever existed.” That conclusion was reached via centuries upon centuries of rigorous scientific research. The idea that the universe was expanding from a singularity was deduced by ridiculously complex mathematical calculations, corrections, reformulations. It wasn’t just some “hunch” they came up with. The Jews, on the other hand, described it perfectly in one shot before science, as we know it, even existed.

That’s like saying that someone, 3000 years ago, might have just “had the idea” of how to build a space ship.

Of course this assumes that a cosmic sequence of events arising from a tiny speck of condensed energy was incomprehensible before science came about.

I don’t really see the rational value of what you are saying. The fact that some individual centuries ago had an similar idea to what science concludes today is simply a coincidence.

Scripture speaks of a seven day creation, and describes nothing about what you or some ancient scribe is talking about.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Of course this assumes that a cosmic sequence of events arising from a tiny speck of condensed energy was incomprehensible before science came about.

Well, the fact of the matter is that it pretty much was. In fact, even after science came about, nay, even after the Big Bang theory itself came about, scientists balked at the idea.
We take it for granted today, but in the scientific community, it was only accepted very reluctantly and after a considerable amount of time.

I don’t really see the rational value of what you are saying. The fact that some individual centuries ago had an similar idea to what science concludes today is simply a coincidence.

Scripture speaks of a seven day creation, and describes nothing about what you or some ancient scribe is talking about.

If you would refer back to my original post, it wasn’t just this one particular Torah scholar’s “idea.” The Hebraic language contained many devices within phrases, words and even individual characters that altered/expanded their meaning (this is particularly relevant to the topic of the 6 days of creation.) This interpretation of Genesis was part of a long standing tradition. The first extant written form of it just happens to come from Nahmanides.

Scribes underwent rigorous training to make copies of the Torah for precisely this reason: each character had to be shaped just right to convey its full meaning. With the slightest alteration of a single accent or curve, a wealth of information could be lost. The penalty for doing so was, shall we say, severe.

Finally, its important to remember that in those times, ink and paper were not abundantly available and concision was a necessity. I would, again, refer anyone interested in a more exhaustive explanation of these issues to the books “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of God,” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

 

[ReapReason]

Well, the fact of the matter is that it pretty much was.

Then I guess your ancient scribe doesn’t really exist then since he was able to comprehend such a view.

In fact, even after science came about, nay, even after the Big Bang theory itself came about, scientists balked at the idea.

So what? Why does that make your argument any-more reasonable? There were ancient philosophers who spoke of indivisible parcels of matter. Does that somehow validate the pagan beliefs of the Greeks? Obviously not.

If you would refer back to my original post, it wasn’t just this particular Torah scholar’s “opinion.” The Hebraic language contained many devices within phrases, words and even individual characters that altered/expanded their meaning. This interpretation of Genesis was part of a long standing tradition. The first extant written form of it just happens to come from Nahmanides.

So you are saying that they had a scientific theory hidden in the words of the bible. Sounds like that book called “the bible code” to me.

Scribes underwent rigorous training to make copies of the Torah for precisely this reason: each character had to be shaped just right to convey its full meaning. With the slightest alteration of a single accent or curve, a wealth of information could be lost. The penalty for doing so was, shall we say, severe.

Bible code.

Finally, its important to remember that in those times, ink and paper were not abundantly available and concision was a necessity. I would, again, refer anyone interested in a more exhaustive explanation of these issues to the books “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of God,” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

So, because Dr. Gerald Schroeder said so, it must be the case that a scientific theory was hidden in Scripture.

Nice reasoning skills you got there.

I really don’t see the relevance. What does it matter whether or not it was an individual or a long standing tradition that developed this “cosmological theory”. It still doesn’t prove or even make likely that because a code is hidden in the bible that therefore we have a divine revelation of scientific theories in the future. What do you know of the intentions of that so called tradition? Was it written as a theory, or was it written as a literal divine revelation? Why would somebody hide such a thing, rather than express it publicly. At some point you have to make an assumption that I don’t think you can back up. Its just a whole lot of assertions. Not to mention that Catholic tradition makes no such claims.

You choose to interpret it that way because it makes you feel comfortable to do so, not because you have any evidence to support it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Then I guess your ancient scribe doesn’t really exist then since he was able to comprehend such a view.

No. That’s precisely the point. It’s quite odd that a group of people would hold such a view in a world where such an idea was almost unanimously considered ludicrous. The fact that they did would hardly be remarkable if it weren’t historically, by and large, considered the height of lunacy.

So what? Why does that make your argument any-more reasonable? There were ancient philosophers who spoke of indivisible parcels of matter. Does that somehow validate the pagan beliefs of the Greeks? Obviously not.

The idea of an indivisible parcel of matter is a much more simple bit of logic that requires only the understanding of the impossibility of an infinite regress.

So you are saying that they had a scientific theory hidden in the words of the bible. Sounds like that book called “the bible code” to me.

I am saying that the Bible says a lot more than its text lets on, yes. This is not some conspiracy theory. It is Judaic tradition.

Bible code.

Ad hominem.

So, because Dr. Gerald Schroeder said so, it must be the case that a scientific theory was hidden in Scripture.

Because Gerald Schroeder has done extensive research in the fields of Torah scholarship and physics (he’s an MIT certified-and-tenured physicist) and documented, quite rigorously, the correlation of Biblical traditions and modern science, I believe that he makes a convincing case that Scripture describes the creation of the universe much more accurately than the common reader thinks.

I really don’t see the relevance. What does it matter whether or not it was an individual or a long standing tradition that developed this “cosmological theory”. It still doesn’t prove or even make likely that because a code is hidden in the bible that therefore we have a divine revelation of scientific theories in the future. What do you know of the intentions of that so called tradition? Was it written as a theory, or was it written as a literal divine revelation? Why would somebody hide such a thing, rather than express it publicly. At some point you have to make an assumption that I don’t think you can back up. Its just a whole lot of assertions. Not to mention that Catholic tradition make no such claims.

It is not a divine revelation of scientific theories of the future. It is a fact of the past. The difference is that the Jews had it long before modern science. It was not hidden. Nahmanides’ works have been publicly available for a long time. That the world chooses to ignore the voices of religious people is its own problem.

And, actually, Catholic tradition (especially from St. Augustine) makes incredibly similar claims as to the development of the universe. Regardless, Catholicism is an extension of Judaism.

You choose to interpret it that way because it makes you feel comfortable to do so, not because you have any evidence to support it.

Nice reasoning skills you got there.

I believe it because I have thoroughly studied the case presented for it and believe the evidence is credible.

Why don’t you actually look at the evidence before you say there isn’t any? My few tiny posts here don’t even begin to do justice to the extent of the research that Schroeder has put into this topic.

Tell ya what; start with just this one little article: The Age of the Universe -Gerald Schroeder.

Sarcasm is an easy way out. You’re making a lot of assumptions before even thoroughly investigating the other side of the argument. It’s easy to mock and disparage something with which you have almost zero familiarity.

 

[Bradski]

Tell ya what; start with just this one little article: The Age of the Universe -Gerald Schroeder.

It’s nonsense. Schroeder says that space is expanding and time is relative. All well and good. But time is not relative unless it is relative to something.

Apart from making the heavens and the earth on Day 1, everything that Genesis describes happens to the earth. A day on earth is a day on earth. There’s no relativity involved. It would only appear to be millions of years to someone observing what was happening from somewhere else.

Seven days of creation would only appear to be 15 billion years to someone else now living on the edge of the observable universe. And after 7 days we…what, switch back to absolute time?

 

[tonyrey]

Then that’s all good. We each have to make the choice we feel best fits the facts. I actually don’t rule out design either. I cannot, and will not, at any time say that an Intelligent Designer isn’t involved.

Your statements can be interpreted as a lack of free choice, Brad. “have to” and “cannot and will not” may mean you are compelled by natural causes to select the explanation you feel is the best that fits the facts. Is that true?

If Behe says: ‘I appreciate that there are possibly different reasons how this could have happened but I’m strongly suggesting that it was the work of an Intelligent Designer’, then that’s a statement with which I will not argue.

But if he says: ‘This is the ONLY way this could have happened and therefore it was the work of an Intelligent Designer’, then he is, quite simply, wrong.

As you quite rightly said yourself: ‘I don’t rule out any explanation…’ which is the sensible course of action. But Behe is not following your advice. He is discounting all explanations except his own.

Can you cite a statement of his to that effect?