The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[ricmat]

**Please read Privileged Planet, and Signature in the Cell, and tell me exactly what is not suitable for science class. **

The failure of theory X to explain something is not evidence for theory Y – if theory X fails then science reverts to “we don’t know”. Theory Y might be equally wrong because actually theory Z is correct. A great deal of pro ID argumentation is along the lines of “the current theory cannot explain this phenomenon”. In science that just shows up a possible gap in the current theory. It is not evidence for an alternative theory. This accounts for the scientific disdain for the “designer of the gaps”.

Neither of the books I mentioned use “the failure of theory X…is not evidence for theory Y…” Neither of the books uses a Designer of the gaps argument.

Your counter arguments are based on straw-man constructs that originate on science fundamentalism web sites.

You can’t even find a single thing in either book which supports your point? Really? That says a lot more than your straw man arguments.

 

[itinerant1]

Because there was an intelligent creator nature is front loaded with complex information and purpose right from the get go.

Okay, but where do you go from there by reason of explanations of observable phenomena in nature? It appears that you have avoided thinking out anything beyond the very beginning.

 

[buffalo]

The Eerie Silence

…Davies asks us to step back from the popular view that life must be common in the universe. **Instead, he says we should consider the possibility that life on Earth is a fluke, a completely improbable event – a winning ticket in a lottery with a trillion-trillion-to-one odds: To a physicist like me, life looks to be a little short of magic: all those dumb molecules conspiring to achieve such clever things! How do they do it? There is no orchestrator, no choreographer directing the performance, no esprit de corps, no collective will, no life force – just mindless atoms pushing and pulling on each other, kicked about by random thermal fluctuations. Yet the end product is an exquisite and highly distinctive form of order. **Even chemists, who are familiar with the amazing transformative powers of molecules, find it breathtaking. George Whitesides, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University, writes, “How remarkable is life? The answer is: very. Those of us who deal in networks of chemical reactions know of nothing like it.”

Davies says there is nothing in the laws of chemistry or physics to indicate life is inevitable, or even a cosmic imperative. He notes there is no mathematical regularity to life, revealing some underlying basic law of nature. Instead, “the chemical sequences seem totally haphazard.” And yet, life has its own sense of order, since re-arranging those chemical sequences can upend the whole system.

“So the arrangement is at once both random and highly specific – a peculiar, indeed unique, combination of qualities hard to explain by deterministic physical forces,” he writes.

I suspect even Paul Davies might like IDvolution.

 

[buffalo]

Okay, but where do you go from there by reason of explanations of observable phenomena in nature? It appears that you have avoided thinking out anything beyond the very beginning.

Geeshh - we gotta take this a step at a time.

Do you think St Thomas might like IDvolution?

 

[buffalo]

**Built in from the get go adaptive capability. IDvolution
**

**
**

Different Genes Cause Loss Of Body Parts – Pelvis And Body Armor – In Similar Fish

…New research shows that when two species of stickleback fish evolved and lost their pelvises and body armor, the changes were caused by different genes in each species. That surprised researchers, who expected the same genes would control the same changes in both related fish.

We knew that in many cases of evolution, the same gene has been used over and over again – even in different species – to give the same anatomy," says Mike Shapiro, first author of the new study and an assistant professor of biology at the University of Utah. “What we are finding now is that different genes can have similar effects.”

…Shapiro conducted the study with three University of Utah biologists: postdoctoral fellow Jaclyn Aldenhoven, graduate student Christopher Cunningham and undergraduate Ashley Miller. Stanford University biologist David Kingsley was senior author, and other co-authors were Stanford’s Brian Summers and Sarita Balabhadra, and evolutionary biologist Michael A. Bell of Stony Brook University in New York state. (this last paragraph for the benefit of StA)

 

[itinerant1]

Geeshh - we gotta take this a step at a time.

Do you think St Thomas might like IDvolution?

Life will be rolling along while you sit back and attempt to re-invent the wheel.

I don’t see anything in your IDvolution that would appeal to a Thomist, because by your own admission you don’t have much to offer since you are taking “a step at a time.”

 

[buffalo]

Life will be rolling along while you sit back and attempt to re-invent the wheel.

I don’t see anything in your IDvolution that would appeal to a Thomist, because by your own admission you don’t have much to offer since you are taking “a step at a time.”

I have yet to see you present a point by point analysis that we could discuss.

Please state coherently your major Thomist objection.

 

[itinerant1]

I have yet to see you present a point by point analysis that we could discuss.

In accordance with what I stated in my last post, there is almost nothing to discuss or analyze. Perhaps you have more to say that you have not yet stated. The ball is in your court.

Please state coherently your major Thomist objection.

Such limitations you impose! I was planning on stating my objection “incoherently”.

 

[grannymh]

I am not sure that I would consider “human nature” to be a system in the same sense that in biology we can consider an assemblage of organs or related tissues concerned with the same function to be a system, or the entire human or animal body considered as a functioning unit as a system. The deeper question considers what is the organizing principle of the organic system.

In non-biological reality, we recognize many systems, too, such as the solar system.

Biological systems, while very complex, are no more irreducibly complex than are physical systems or such things as plate tectonics. In fact, if we strictly apply Behe’s definition of IR systems, then plate tectonics involves irreducible complexity.

As far as I can tell, the human person is the only irreducible complex organism, system, or whatever.

Long ago, I had started work on the following proposed thesis:
"The possibility of two sole parents of the human species lies within the nature of the human person,”

Once the true nature of the spiritual soul is determined and thus true human nature specified as an intimate, unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/ body – once that endeavor is accomplished – it would be possible to defend the proposed thesis:

As a consequence of returning humanity to its proper place at the pinnacle of creation, man’s spiritual soul, including its powers of intellect and will, becomes the sufficient reason to reexamine science’s assumptions of polygenism which is based on only part of the real, true human nature

Ah, one says. Spirituality cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

It must be completely understood that science is not excluded from this thesis. Nor are the various science disciplines being trashed. Science must contribute its knowledge in the material/physical realm. Even the age and development of the earth presents vital knowledge as to the environmental conditions suitable for human beginnings.

This means that an independent review of scientific literature would be conducted from an analytic position, hopefully one which is free from restraints. Of special interest would be the methods and materials sections. Also to be considered would be questions regarding the extrapolation of particular results to universal conclusions.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 355, points out that in his own nature, the human person unites the spiritual and material worlds. This is truly awesome!

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Philipp]

Neither 9-11 nor the Big Bang were explosions.

A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Search the definition as I did. You’re wrong again. In any event the point is that order does not come out of chaos whether a planes hit hit the two towers and they implode or explode; the results are the same. Life can not and did not evolve from chaos.

 

[itinerant1]

As far as I can tell, the human person is the only irreducible complex organism, system, or whatever.

To consider the human person as an IC organism presents a fundamental problem.
Before discussing that problem, I will note the origin of the human person does involve the theological understanding that the immaterial soul must be created directly by God. This creative act, is obviously a special action by the Creator. ID theorists, however, posit numerous special interventions in regard to all alleged IC systems in nature.

Now, if an organism is IC according to ID theory, then that implies the faulty notion that science can measure and observe the “intelligence” which drives drives and directs evolution. Most assuredly, this is bad science and bad philosophy.

Hence, if one were to assert that man is irreducibly complex according to ID theory’s notion of irreducible complexity, then one has bought into a scientifically and philosophically flawed notion, as explained in the foregoing.

Why even let the bogey man in the door in the case of human nature? Good science and classical philosophy, each within their own province, provide better explanations of nature and of man than does ID theory. I see no place for, or any legitimate use of, ID theory with its notions of irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and so on.

 

[rossum]

Neither of the books I mentioned use “the failure of theory X…is not evidence for theory Y…” Neither of the books uses a Designer of the gaps argument.

I suggest that you read Behe. He points to some properties of e.g. the malaria parasite that he claims could not have evolved and says that therefore those properties were designed. Dembski uses similar arguments with respect to his CSI.

As to “Privileged Planet” then there is a distinct lack of mechanisms. If the moon was sized and placed as precisely as claimed then the moon had to be manipulated by some force. There are four known physical forces: gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong. No evidence is given of a designer using any of those forces to manipulate the moon. No evidence is given of a possible fifth force being used by a designer to manipulate the moon. Where is the evidence of any designer doing anything?

“Signature in the Cell” basically amounts to “gosh doesn’t that look complicated – it must have been designed.” Others more knowledgeable than me have disassembled Meyer’s arguments. It also fails to specify how the designer manipulated DNA to get the desired result. Which of the four known forces were used? Was a fifth force used? Where is the supporting evidence?

If a designer is to actually produce a design made out of material atoms then those material atoms have to be actually manipulated in some way. ID has no mechanism and no evidence of any mechanism. A designer who cannot manipulate even a single atom cannot make any DNA and cannot make a moon.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Search the definition as I did. You’re wrong again. In any event the point is that order does not come out of chaos whether a planes hit hit the two towers and they implode or explode; the results are the same. Life can not and did not evolve from chaos.

It was 13.7 billion years ago. In any case, the Big Bang was not chaos. It was very specific, incredibly specific.

 

[rossum]

In any event the point is that order does not come out of chaos whether a planes hit hit the two towers and they implode or explode; the results are the same.

Mix up some oil and water so that the two are chaotically mixed. Allow the mixture to stand. It will spontaneously separate into oil on top and water below. Order can emerge from chaos spontaneously. Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is faulty.

Life can not and did not evolve from chaos.

But it can develop from chemistry, and chemistry is not chaos.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Perhaps, then we must differ.

ID is not science, so it’s not a matter if ID doing science well; and yes, there is the creationist aspect to ID theories. The creationism questions come into play, for instance, with “irreducible complexity”: how did these IR systems come about and when?? Perhaps you have not given this much thought.

Creationists and ID theorists reside on the same side of the fence (or in the same bad neighborhood ), though at an annual picnic they will probably sit a different tables and be somewhat uncomfortable with each other.

As far as sound philosophy is concerned, it is in scarce supply amongst creationists and ID theorists.

So, unless you have a dynamite answer to the IR questions posed above, I must maintain that ID theory is a variant form of creationism, a more sophisticated version of Paleyism.

Granny, I see where I confused you with this post. For some reason, I typed “IR” instead of “IC”. It was very late at night. What a clutz I can be.

 

[edwest2]

Some faulty assumptions here.

Prior to the universe, there was nothing. Nothing. No laws, no matter, and no energy. Then, we are told, an explosion occurred and things did what? Self-organize?

The oil and water example is silly. Take water down to 32 F and it freezes. Go above that and it liquifies. Take it higher and it turns to steam. So what?

We are being asked to accept the idea of chaos turning into order. By itself.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Philipp]

Thank you for the confirmation. That is indeed the article I thought it was.

(1) I gather from your lengthy response that there is no Bible quote saying that God made an ionised plasma. So the article is pure speculation with no evidence offered. The Big Bang theory does offer supportive evidence, such as the CMBR. Creationism loses, evidence wins.

(2) You just lost the argument. Miracles are, by definition, outside science. If you need to resort to miracles then you are not promoting “Creation Science” but “Creation Miraclism”. You have lost all hope of getting your beliefs into science classrooms. As I said, the heat problem kills YEC every time.

(3) All reasonable dates and most of them blow the YEC timescale out of the water.

(4) If these dates are correct then YEC is wrong. If these dates are incorrect then they show nothing. Either you have a dead theory or you have nothing. Is that really the position you want to be in?

rossum

(1) You show us the hard evidence how we get from the Big Bang to the many life forms we have on earth and I’ll show you the book on the details of how to make elements from water.

(2) Therefore evolution of life from a big explosion is outside of science and would require zillions of miracles also, so what are we arguing about

(3) Thank you.

(4) I am NOT an Usherite. I don’t know when Adam and Eve or the earth and the universe were created but all the evidence from history and science I and others have shown suggest it was only thousands of years ago not millions or billions of years ago. Those billions of years exist only but in the minds of men.

(5) Big Jack Horner sat in a corner
scraping a dinosaur bone.
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, “Just what I feared!
Evolution’s long ages are gone!”

C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen, Calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite and total organics has shown that dinosaur fossil bones are 2000 times younger than what EVOS claim. That is the position I take. You can try and pin me into a YEC corner but I don’t fit. C-14 dating simply takes us 2000 times closer to the real age which science possibly will never discover. But, our future scientists have a right to try and perform the necessary research to find out. Therefore tell them about the results of the current research and let the scientists of today and future scientists date the fossils and not the rocks and see what they get. That my friend is how science advances.

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

 

[buffalo]

Mix up some oil and water so that the two are chaotically mixed. Allow the mixture to stand. It will spontaneously separate into oil on top and water below. Order can emerge from chaos spontaneously. Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is faulty.

But it can develop from chemistry, and chemistry is not chaos.

rossum

Order is not complexity. But complexity contains order.

 

[buffalo]

Some faulty assumptions here.

Prior to the universe, there was nothing. Nothing. No laws, no matter, and no energy. Then, we are told, an explosion occurred and things did what? Self-organize?

The oil and water example is silly. Take water down to 32 F and it freezes. Go above that and it liquifies. Take it higher and it turns to steam. So what?

We are being asked to accept the idea of chaos turning into order. By itself.

God bless,
Ed

As the modern synthesis fades, the EES is self assembly. The question is what will come next after that fails? It seems the options are getting narrower.

Did you catch the Paul Davies quotes I posted tonight?

 

[itinerant1]

Some faulty assumptions here.

Prior to the universe, there was nothing. Nothing. No laws, no matter, and no energy. Then, we are told, an explosion occurred and things did what? Self-organize?

The oil and water example is silly. Take water down to 32 F and it freezes. Go above that and it liquifies. Take it higher and it turns to steam. So what?

We are being asked to accept the idea of chaos turning into order. By itself.

God bless,
Ed

That is not exactly the situation. Science traces one specificity to another, and another, etc.

Science does not deal with the ultimate cause of the order in the universe, an order which is presumed and which makes science itself possible.

Order and design in the universe do not justify postulating special interventions by God. In an manner analogous to the relation of creation and conservation, the primordial design laid out be God as he creates, is implemented without any new particular “designs” applied by Him.

Matter contains everything it needs to carry out the designs of the Creator. This is the Intelligent Project.

By not allowing matter, which is very specific, the ability to carry out the Divine Plan of creation, which may include abiognesis, ID theory deviates from the Catholic understanding of Creation, and it deviates from any sound philosophical analysis of nature, not to mention it is a science killer.