- Status
R
rvilbig
Guest
This intelligent design stuff is so unappealing. As von Hildebrand says, “simplicity is the seal of verity,” and evolution, by all counts, is simple. Things change, things thrive, things die. The convolutions of ID theory should immediately call into question its truth content. All of these theorems of complexity are completely superfluous. Scripture tells us that change in nature is type of change in our spiritual lives: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23, RSV). It’s really that simple.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
B
buffalo
Guest
What??? Evolution violates the law of parsimony more and more every day. Have you been listening to evo explanations?
R
rvilbig
Guest
One more point: evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The heat transfer of the sun to the earth increases entropy far more than the evolution of life decreases it. The entropy of a closed system increases, and so when you include the entire system that includes the matter of evolving life, entropy still increases. Otherwise, the development of an adult human from a fetus would also violate entropy because the order found in an adult is far greater than the order of a fertilized egg. IDers seem to have a diabolical desire to show that nature violates nature. Why?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
S
stephe1987
Guest
I remain skeptical in regards to the origin of life as far as whether or not evolution is possible. For one, it is mathematically improbable, something like 1 in 10^132 assuming abiogenesis is possible. We have to get a planet like ours (very improbable) and then get everything to evolve to be more and more complex. Antibodies and resistance aren’t the same as becoming a new species. Also, if you estimate how long it would take to add a new gene that wouldn’t weaken the species (slowing it down or killing off that organism), the Earth isn’t old enough. There would have to be a period or periods where evolution was rapid (missing fossils even though each species supposedly lived for 100,000+ years), and rapid evolution hasn’t been observed anywhere. We also found fossils dated to be millions of years old that show species that are exactly the same as today. Others have gone extinct, and still others are missing too many pieces to definitively tell what the heck it even was (yet they’re prematurely presented as transitional species). Even slow evolution hasn’t appeared in lizard studies or bacteria studies, even in thousands of generations. Scientists have tried to simulate life starting in early Earth conditions, but so far it has been unsuccessful. The first one produced both LH and RH amino acids (poison to life) and newer ones based on updated knowledge of early Earth have produced nothing so far. We can copy DNA or move it to another host, but it hasn’t been able to create itself on its own without an intelligent designer: a human. Sure, survival of the fittest is true. Animals that blend in better have a lower probability of being eaten, and of course if something is eaten it isn’t going to pass on its genes.
I think evolution is accepted because it is the only non-god explanation for life. If we find something else, evolution will be abandoned (except the natural selection parts). Already, scientists are talking about things like parallel universes. The fact that criticisms of evolution are not allowed in our classrooms (nobody is saying anything about God, religion, or an intelligent designer… only criticisms of evolution) should be a huge red flag. Also, more and more scientists are turning creationist or hiding their views because there is a history of people being fired, denied entrance into Master’s or Ph.D programs, etc. if they don’t believe in evolution. It’s not a friendly environment. Many transitional fossils presented have been hoaxes, and they are still classified as some sort of intermediate stage between apes and humans. Scientists are prideful people who continue down a path just so they can keep their grants, even if they know they’re not getting anywhere new.
Another strange thing is the dinosaur fossils that had soft tissues. Even in the best conditions, chemists are saying that the dinosaur couldn’t have lived more than 6,600 years ago. Maybe the Earth is younger than we thought? Maybe dinosaurs didn’t die off as soon as we thought and did co-exist with humans at some point? Maybe we’ll never know?
I don’t think any origin of life studies are truly falsifiable. God is defined as being infinitely powerful and always existing, so there really isn’t anything He couldn’t have created. Evolution is said to be falsifiable if there is lack of fossils. But there are tons of missing fossils (“the movie of evolution is like a film with 999 of 1,000 slides missing”) and that might just be because the conditions weren’t met, not because they never existed. There is no way to tell without a time machine…
I think evolution is accepted because it is the only non-god explanation for life. If we find something else, evolution will be abandoned (except the natural selection parts). Already, scientists are talking about things like parallel universes. The fact that criticisms of evolution are not allowed in our classrooms (nobody is saying anything about God, religion, or an intelligent designer… only criticisms of evolution) should be a huge red flag. Also, more and more scientists are turning creationist or hiding their views because there is a history of people being fired, denied entrance into Master’s or Ph.D programs, etc. if they don’t believe in evolution. It’s not a friendly environment. Many transitional fossils presented have been hoaxes, and they are still classified as some sort of intermediate stage between apes and humans. Scientists are prideful people who continue down a path just so they can keep their grants, even if they know they’re not getting anywhere new.
Another strange thing is the dinosaur fossils that had soft tissues. Even in the best conditions, chemists are saying that the dinosaur couldn’t have lived more than 6,600 years ago. Maybe the Earth is younger than we thought? Maybe dinosaurs didn’t die off as soon as we thought and did co-exist with humans at some point? Maybe we’ll never know?
I don’t think any origin of life studies are truly falsifiable. God is defined as being infinitely powerful and always existing, so there really isn’t anything He couldn’t have created. Evolution is said to be falsifiable if there is lack of fossils. But there are tons of missing fossils (“the movie of evolution is like a film with 999 of 1,000 slides missing”) and that might just be because the conditions weren’t met, not because they never existed. There is no way to tell without a time machine…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Ryan
This intelligent design stuff is so unappealing. … The convolutions of ID theory should immediately call into question its truth content.
Is God convoluted?
Is there no truth content in God?
Is God unappealing?
This intelligent design stuff is so unappealing. … The convolutions of ID theory should immediately call into question its truth content.
Is God convoluted?
Is there no truth content in God?
Is God unappealing?
R
rvilbig
Guest
Rossum, interesting article applying Dembski’s EF to God. Thanks for sharing. You may be interested to know that Dietrich von Hildebrand actually argued that simplicity increases from inorganic matter to God. He wrote:
“A single material thing taken as such represents a wealth of being, proper to the material sphere as a whole, in a fragmentary and indirect manner only. It is different with the sphere of organic life. In any single organism much more is “said” as it were, than in a piece of lifeless matter; at the same time, it manifests a far greater simplicity in that it is all subordinated to one principle…And, while the spiritual person has far more substantiality and depth than has the living organism, let alone lifeless matter, by the same token it also possesses much more simplicity. Here, the category of quantity decreases in meaning and is no longer applicable in exactly the same sense… Metaphysically speaking, the higher an entity is, the greater its simplicity. … The absolute simplicity of God precludes the distinction, not only between form and matter but between existence and essence, between actus and potentia. Yet, God is the infinite plenitude of being” (Transformation in Christ, page 74-76, excerpts)
Personally, I don’t think Dembski’s argument will ever hold any place in Catholic theology. But that’s just my opinion.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
R
rossum
Guest
That study used Shannon Information. Evolutionary processes can easily produce an increase in Shannon Information, for example gene duplication or a LINE insertion.
Dembsk’s claims relate to Complex Specified Information, which is not the same as Shannon Information.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I am inclined to agree. From the outside a simple God seems more in tune with Catholic thinking than a complex God, and as my light hearted piece showed, in section 2.1, if we apply Dembski’s method to a simple God it assigns the origin of God to chance. That would tend to indicate an incompatibility between Dembski’s and von Hildebrand’s ideas.
If you enjoyed my piece on the Explanatory Filter, you might also like Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector. I was going to call it “A Modest Proposal…” but that would have been too obvious.
rossum
PS. If any of you reading this do not get the reference to “A Modest Proposal …” you really do need to read the original: art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
R
rvilbig
Guest
Interesting. The problem with the Universal Probability Bound, of course, is that it assumes that some things (those above the bound, 10^-150) occur by chance. And I don’t think that that’s a theologically tenable position for any Catholic:
“Learn then that I, I alone, am God, and there is no god besides me. It is I who bring both death and life, I who inflicts wounds and heal them, and from my hand there is no rescue.” (Dt 32:39)
Devising “scientific” parameters for chance is like telling God that we’ll believe He did some things but not others, when the truth is that God is the author both of deterministic laws and contingent laws as well as all non-material realities. Dembski’s natural theology is unorthodox to say the least.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Metaphysically speaking, the higher an entity is, the greater its simplicity. …
The amoeba is closer to God than man is?
The amoeba is closer to God than man is?
B
buffalo
Guest
Unless of course an outside source energizes the soul which animates the body.
B
buffalo
Guest
No - I object! Plaintiff take him away…
Evolutionary process cannot EASILY produce an increase in Shannon information.
R
reggieM
Guest
Why are your fellow Catholics who support ID (Bp. Donald Wuerl, Cardinal George Pell, Fr. John Corapi, Msgr. John F. McCarthy, Fr. Thomas Dubay, Fr. Robert Spitzer, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Scott Hahn, George Weigel) actually diabolical agents of Satan ?
I’ll have to guess that when you were creating the question, you already had an answer in mind, but I’ll take a guess: “They’re agents of Satan?”
The Catholic Encyclopedia might be diabolical as well:
newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
The wonderful order or evidence of **intelligent design **which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
or this …
From Bishop Donald Wuerl:
“Continuing to make a case for intelligent design among other leading theories of the universe’s origin, the Bishop wrote that, “When we examine with the light of reason the origins of the cosmos and human life then we must be prepared to respond to all the reasonable, rational, intellectually sustainable theories.”
“Academia”, he said, “must never become arbitrarily exclusive of the conclusions of rational investigation.”
R
rossum
Guest
Objection overruled. Judge Dar Win does not agree.No - I object! Plaintiff take him away…
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
In this case Dr Dembski is right, some very unlikely things do happen by chance. If I sell enough lottery tickets then by drawing a single winning ticket I can have a chance event as unlikely as I wish.
Take two packs of cards and shuffle them together. There are factorial 104 (104!) ways for the cards to be arranged, that is 1e166 ways or a 1 in 10^166 chance of getting any particular arrangement. How many different ways are there to arrange the grains of sand on a beach? What is the chance of the particular current arrangement? Many things happen that have chances far less than the UPB. That is why Dembski includes the requirement for a specification in his CSI. Sand on a beach or shuffled cards are complex but not specified and so cannot be CSI.
Agreed. The ID designer is a small designer who designed some things but not others. The Christian God is far larger.
rossum
R
rvilbig
Guest
Personally, I don’t think the lottery and decks of cards are fair comparisons for the relationship between God and the universe. In these examples, there is still an agent who chooses, but the end is hidden from the agent’s knowledge. God, by comparison, both chooses and is omniscient regarding the ends of His particular choices. Of this we read in Psalm 94: “Does the one who shaped the ear not hear? The one who formed the eye not see? … The one who teaches humans not have knowledge?” (Ps 94:9-10) To the properly formed Christian, sand on the beach has been specifically ordered by God.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Perhaps angels?
E
edwest2
Guest
Why do you talk about an unidentified designer as if he/she/it was real? I don’t get that.
Lottery tickets represent a large, but finite set. The same with a deck of cards. From the creation of the universe to date, an extremely large number of events had to occur. We also have biological systems that require a number of functional components to be in place, at the same time, for the system to function.
You appear - and I just mean this as an observation - to primarily concern yourself with the designer. You appear to be ignoring the very improbable nature of all of what we see around us coming together by a series of accidental events. This goes beyond the simple idea of why is there something instead of nothing? It goes to the idea that out of all of the possibilities, here we are.
Further, if we are simply chemicals in motion then why bother discussing this issue? Go about your day, perform adaptive functions (or not) and just get on with your life.
God bless,
Ed
B
Black_Rose
Guest
That is actually incorrect, since there are two of the same card in every deck so the ways of arranging the cards would be somewhat less than 104! .
- Status