Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[buffalo]

Hi buffalo,

Please show me where there is light in the universe that does not emit from some star? However, we do know that God is Light and that He “lights” up heaven for eternity.

1 John 1:5 “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.”

Revelation 21:23 “The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.”

Revelation 22:5 “There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.”

Per the two creation accounts: I was merely showing that the two literal Genesis creation accounts differ. I was not making any theological comparisons. Thank you for yours though.

Pax,
SHW

The big bang emitted radiation and some of it was along the light spectrum.

 

[buffalo]

To be precise, it’s a measure of uncertainty in a message. It can be adopted to genetics, because DNA contains information. Hence, any new mutation adds information in a population.

The significant difference between the scientific definition and Gitt’s definition is simple: the scientific defintion works. Gitt’s does not. So when it comes to finding new ways to pack information in a limited pipe, we use Shannon’s equation, not Gitt’s idea of coding. When we make sure a spacecraft millons of kilometers away can reliably broadcast, it’s Shannon’s version. Gitt’s simple-minded idea of information can’t even approach these problems.

Even random events generate information.

H = - K Sigma i = 1 n (pi log(pi))

Want to see how it works?

Time to play the Dawkins Mutation Challenge again.

 

[buffalo]

How does one teach ID? Wouldn’t the lesson pretty much go “God created the species as they are” and that’s about it? Sure doesn’t sound like science.

It’s not a faith statement. I’m just saying “I don’t know.” It doesn’t take any faith to not believe something. I’m open to convincing evidence of God or gods. I just haven’t seen any. I also have been unconvinced by the evidence for angels, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. But my lack of belief in those things also requires no faith.

But if you want to extend the definition of faith so far as to include not believing in mythological creature, then okay, by your understanding I have faith. As the kids say, whatever…

Well that’s the issue. How could ID be disproven? If you can’t explain how a universe that is designed would be different from one that is not designed in such a way that we can compare our observations with your predictions, then you don’t actually have a scientific hypothesis.

Best,
Leela

ID teaching would to teach methods that can detect patterns of design.

 

[buffalo]

If we have strong evidence for something we have good reason to believe it. The question of when we can say that we actually have definitive proof of something is hard one. It depends on what you mean by prooof. It is generally taken to mean that a belief is so well justified that one is compelled to believe it. But that compulsion will depend on how skeptical you are or want to pretend to be.

For example, if you drop a ball 100 times and it falls to the ground each time, have you proven that it will always fall to the ground? Most people are convinced, but most people would also say that this doesn’t constitute proof. In fact no matter how many such experiences that are consistent with the hypothesis that the ball will always fall, we can’t say that we’ve proven that this will always happen because we haven’t experienced “always.”

That the ball will always fall is a valid scientific hypothesis because we can say exactly what sort of experience would be inconsistent with it. (Note that we can’t say the same thing about ID.) All we would need to disprove it is to drop the ball one time and for it to begin rising up into the air.

So scientists don’t prove things so much as accumulate data that is consistent with their hypothesis to validate applying the truth of the hypothesis to solving problems and inquiring in other directions while remaining open to the need to revise their hypothesis in the face of contradictory evidence.

Best,
Leela

You are walking down the beach. Ahead of you is a long path of left footprints. What can you conclude from this? A deceiver at work? What can you be absolutely certain of?

 

[Leela]

ID teaching would to teach methods that can detect patterns of design.

Regardless of what we observe, whether it is the miracle of a plane landing safely in the Hudson or the tradgedy of a plane crashing in Buffalo,we can always say that the universe may have been designed to be exactly that way.

To discuss methods of detecting patterns of design would require is to be able to distinguish between patterns that are designed and ones that are not designed. How can such patterns be distinguished?

Best,
Leela

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The problem here is that you don’t have a means to measure that information, much less understand what information means. As I pointed out in my last post, information is not simply an accumulation of data points.

So you are saying that other creationists are wrong when they claim that evolution cannot increase information? They must be wrong because it is not possible to measure biological information so it is impossible to tell if information is increasing or decreasing. Am I correct here?

You are not disputing what I stated. Information is not simply an accumulation of data points.

I didn’t calculate anything. I’m saying that DNA is information. That much is a fact which I understand that all evolutionists agree with.

rossum:

DNA is a way of storing information, it is not “information”, which is an abstract mathematical quantity.

Wow. You’re getting closer. One way of expressing the information packed in the Chromosome molecule is to define DNA as information. But that really is simplistic. As you noted, DNA is nothing more than a MEDIUM for the information, because the information is abstract and distinct from the MEDIUM.

rossum:

The same information stored in a piece of DNA can just as easily be expressed in a sequence of letters on a page, a pattern of bits in a computer memory or an arrangement of light and dark on a computer screen.

You’re close, but as I noted, not close enough. You can most certainly express the same information in a different language, or via a different medium, but you must be able to translate it into a different language in order to do that, or be able to speak the original language directly.

Expressing DNA in a sequence of letters on a page, or as a pattern of bits in a computer, is nothing more than translation of the information. The sequence of letters would be nothing more than another MEDIUM for conveying that information.

rossum:

We do have means of quantifying it, it is just that you do not accept those means.

I don’t accept those means because they go outside of what a true definition of information is. Information is not a numerical representation of an aggregation of data points. Werner Gitt I believe was the first to propose that the amount of information in a DNA molecule was the equivalent of X amounts of encyclopedia Britannicas. But I’m not sure how he arrived at this.

The point is that if you measure information, as Shannon does, as an aggregation of bits of data, then you lose the abstract meaning of the information. I’m not saying that you (plural=anyone) cannot measure information, but that we must be able to translate it properly in order to do that, and to do that we must be able to interpret the abstract qualities of that information.

rossum:

Despite what you say Shannon information is applicable to DNA - it can be seen as a transmission of information from parent to offspring. You agreed that Shannon information was developed to deal with transmission over a noisy line. In biology mutations are the noise on the line as the DNA is transmitted from parent to offspring. The analogy is good enough for the mathematics to work perfectly well in either case.

I’m not disputing that, but you completely fail to understand the difference between Shannon’s computation of information as a means of insuring against data loss during transmission, and the measurement of abstract information. Shannon’s computations are a dry measurement of data points in a specific sequence. In Shannon’s world, it would not matter if the data points were a random array of data, or an information-packed set of encyclopedias. That’s because Shannon’s computations do NOT measure the intrinsicly abstract qualities of information, but only the MEDIUM of that information.

 

[Leela]

You are walking down the beach. Ahead of you is a long path of left footprints. What can you conclude from this? A deceiver at work? What can you be absolutely certain of?

What am I supposed to conclude? I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[buffalo]

Regardless of what we observe, whether it is the miracle of a plane landing safely in the Hudson or the tradgedy of a plane crashing in Buffalo,we can always say that the universe may have been designed to be exactly that way.

To discuss methods of detecting patterns of design would require is to be able to distinguish between patterns that are designed and ones that are not designed. How can such patterns be distinguished?

Best,
Leela

If you go looking at rocks and you see an arrowhead among them you can definitely understand that its shape and purpose rules out nature. Humans can see design, the trick is to formulize it so it is testable.

 

[buffalo]

What am I supposed to conclude? I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

When you see this pattern what do you make of it?

 

[Leela]

When you see this pattern what do you make of it?

Someone was hopping on one foot?

 

[PEPCIS]

How does one teach ID? Wouldn’t the lesson pretty much go “God created the species as they are” and that’s about it? Sure doesn’t sound like science.

A good place to start would be by instructing the class to read William Paley’s famous work written in 1802 of finding a watch lying on a heath. Things that look designed are designed. There are means of testing for that.

In addition to that, I would hand out a new textbook, Of Pandas and People.

Leela:

It’s not a faith statement. I’m just saying “I don’t know.” It doesn’t take any faith to not believe something. I’m open to convincing evidence of God or gods. I just haven’t seen any. I also have been unconvinced by the evidence for angels, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. But my lack of belief in those things also requires no faith.

But if you want to extend the definition of faith so far as to include not believing in mythological creature, then okay, by your understanding I have faith. As the kids say, whatever…

Let’s just say I’m not buying what your selling.

Leela:

Well that’s the issue. How could ID be disproven? If you can’t explain how a universe that is designed would be different from one that is not designed in such a way that we can compare our observations with your predictions, then you don’t actually have a scientific hypothesis.

Nice try. Intelligent Design CAN be falsified. I’ve already noted how there have been evolutionists who have attempted to do that very thing. They obviously believe that it can be falsified. You are just repeating an old canard.​

It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot, irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
– J. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man

 

[Leela]

If you go looking at rocks and you see an arrowhead among them you can definitely understand that its shape and purpose rules out nature. Humans can see design, the trick is to formulize it so it is testable.

I agree in so far as it is the appearance of design in nature that evolutionary theory tries to explain.

Are you saying that some things are designed and that others are not? And that we need to find ways to distinguish which ones are designed? But everything we observe could be said to be designed for a purpose? Unless you can suggest a method for distinguishing what is designed from what is not, you don’t have a scientific hypothesis.

You have to think about what a universe would be like that was not designed and describe how our universe is different to be able to defend the claim that our universe is designed.

Best,
Leela

 

[PEPCIS]

Regardless of what we observe, whether it is the miracle of a plane landing safely in the Hudson or the tradgedy of a plane crashing in Buffalo,we can always say that the universe may have been designed to be exactly that way.

This is just plain WRONG.

Random events create random patterns. Intelligent Design events create non-random patterns. Intelligent Design can be tested for.

Leela:

To discuss methods of detecting patterns of design would require is to be able to distinguish between patterns that are designed and ones that are not designed. How can such patterns be distinguished?

Good question.

Random patterns such as the arrangement of pebbles on a beach from the action of the waves, can be distinguished from Intelligently Designed patterns such as a castle built from beach sand.

 

[buffalo]

Someone was hopping on one foot?

That is one possibility.

 

[Ender]

The big bang emitted radiation and some of it was along the light spectrum.

I have forgotten where I read it but for the first tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years after the big bang the entire universe was an expanding ball of … light. I don’t argue for a literal reading of the story of creation in Genesis but it is entertaining to scientifically refute those who use this particular line of attack. Yes, light came long before there were stars.

Ender

 

[buffalo]

I agree in so far as it is the appearance of design in nature that evolutionary theory tries to explain.

Are you saying that some things are designed and that others are not? And that we need to find ways to distinguish which ones are designed? But everything we observe could be said to be designed for a purpose? Unless you can suggest a method for distinguishing what is designed from what is not, you don’t have a scientific hypothesis.

You have to think about what a universe would be like that was not designed and describe how our universe is different to be able to defend the claim that our universe is designed.

Best,
Leela

That is what the DI is working on. Maybe they will come up with it or maybe they won’t. It is good that their feet are held to the fire. Should we not investigate the possibility?

 

[Leela]

Random events create random patterns. Intelligent Design events create non-random patterns. Intelligent Design can be tested for.

How?

(isn’t “random pattern” an oxymoron?)

Random patterns such as the arrangement of pebbles on a beach from the action of the waves, can be distinguished from Intelligently Designed patterns such as a castle built from beach sand.

How?

How could you hope to ever refute the claim that the exact arrangement of pebbles on the beach is so astronomically unlikely as to validate my belief that universe must have been designed for the purpose of making that exact arrangement of pebbles?

What you need is a method for showing that something was not designed. Then you will have a scientific hypothesis in ID. Until then, you don’t.

 

[buffalo]

How?

(isn’t “random pattern” an oxymoron?)

How?

How could you hope to ever refute the claim that the exact arrangement of pebbles on the beach is so astronomically unlikely as to validate my belief that universe must have been designed for the purpose of making that exact arrangement of pebbles?

What you need is a method for showing that something was not designed. Then you will have a scientific hypothesis in ID. Until then, you don’t.

Are you going the multi-verse way here?

 

[SHW]

The big bang emitted radiation and some of it was along the light spectrum.

I personally believe that the “The Big Bang” theory is correct.
Thank you for your explanation about the radiation. However, this radiation did not have the ability to separate day from night.

Genesis1:1-5 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

My whole point is that the Scriptures concerning Creation should not be taken in a strictly literal manner. Yes, God did create the heavens and the earth. Yes, God did create Adam as the first of the species of Mankind. Adam is the first person to have an immortal soul. But, God did not have to literally create all of this in seven twenty-four hour days.

Evolution does not negate God’s creativity. It can be the way that God did create. **It just does not matter that the two creation accounts’ “facts” do not match.

** What matters is that we know that God is our loving Father who created us in His image and likeness, and He wants us to fear Him and obey Him so that we can enjoy eternal life with Him. He sent His only begotten Son to redeem us, and He sent His Holy Spirit to comfort us until we can be with Him forever.
**
This is what really matters: God created us and loves us and wants us to be with Him forever.
**
Acts 10:34-38 “Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”

In Genesis 1:20-26, God creates the animals first and then man.
In Genesis 2:15-19, God creates man first and then the animals.

It just doesn’t matter that they do not agree.

This is what really matters: God created us. We are made in His image and likeness with immortal souls. He loves us and He redeemed us. He wants us to be with Him forever in heaven.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Leela]

Are you going the multi-verse way here?

No.