Search This Blog

Monday, January 24, 2011

A Creationist's guide to online resources. Can a Darwinist be a Theist?

Can you be a Darwinist and a Theist?




 

"The rules of the game - As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true."  Carl Wieland in Creation 11(1):47–50, December 1988


There are of course the Big Three long-term organizations who have been around for some time and have long-term projects that have advanced our knowledge.






"I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory. But after the fact, real advances in science are systematically given an evolutionary spin. This reflects the pervasive politicization of science."—Dr John Sanford, inventor of the Gene Gun

Then there are the Creation-Evolution Headlines for a Creationist look at science news from all sources and recently asked the question; Has Biomimetics Surpassed Biology?

Access Research Network has a wide variety of source materials for those who wish to learn.  They do tend towards the ID side but still they have some awesome articles and links, like how about a free molecular machine poster or the news that the University of Kentucky had to own up to their prejudice and censorship to the tune of $125,000!

Back to the rocks...Tas Walker's page gives the Creationist perspective on the rock records with on-the-ground research, graphs and expertise.

                                                     west to east. Vertical exaggeration 10.42
Go to blog to click and enlarge

Ah, Karl Priest The Insectman, who really has a way with making the insect world talk.  He is willing to help evolutionists as well.

"That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder." -Calvin


Ian Juby has a traveling Creationism Museum, has done tests to confirm the hypothesis of myriad varves and other Noahic Flood signatures, makes lots of cool presentations,   was able to do intensive testing to confirm the Delk dinosaur-and-human track and has a great newsletter.  "I am the president of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education.  I am also the director of the Creation Science Museum of Canada, a member of Mensa Canada and the president of the International Creation Science Special Interest Group for Mensans."  He almost makes me want to join the Mensas...almost.  Maybe when they are free to join?  He is a big wheel in the Creationist world for good reason.

Conservapedia, as Ian notes, has a lot of good information for those just starting out.

So is Creation Wiki.  Did you know that Dragons are dinosaurs and that sightings have been reported and figurines and drawings and...well, I did post on that before but here is another link.

‘The human body is a … chemically fueled, force-liquid-and-air cooled, … communicative, photochromatic, binocular, cellularly self-replicating, self-diagnostic, self-repairing tissuewise, … computer-controlled, biodegradable exhaust system machine, capable of short and long-term memory with conceptual retrieval and in...tegration, and precise decision-making and creativity—the “Ultimate Machine”.’—Dr David Kaufmann


Jonathan Wells is having a few you tube videos put out there to celebrate the ten year anniversary of Icons of Evolution.   

Like Haeckel:



Homology:



Miller-Urey!



 Fruir Flies:



Peppered Moths? Finch Beaks?




So much balderdash being passed off as science by the Darwinists.   They will keep saying it until you not only show it to be untrue but find enough people willing to publish it as untrue before they begin to back off.  I have not noticed any attempt to be proactive in the Darwinist community.   They throw the same old canards out there until even the propagandized news media knows better.  But as the last post illustrates, it has always been so in the world of Darwinism.

Deliberate deceit of Huxley and Haeckel illustrated in,

Bathybius haeckelii and a ‘reign of terror’

 


The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin’s theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people’s minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of ‘Monera’ to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence.

Thomas Henry Huxley
Figure 1. Thomas Henry Huxley in 1874.
(Image wikipedia.org)

It was Thomas Henry Huxley’s enthusiasm that brought Bathybius into the world (figure 1). He was encouraged in this endeavour by Ernst Haeckel, who was one of the foremost supporters of abiogenesis during the latter part of the nineteenth century; the idea that life can arise from non-life. Bathybius though was to turn into a real embarrassment for both when it was found to be merely a chemical precipitate (amorphous gypsum). Seemingly their judgment was clouded due to their strong determination to find evidence for Darwin’s new theory. But there is also evidence that Huxley was engaged in a campaign of rhetorical bullying at the time as well to silence critics. The Duke of Argyll (George Douglas Campbell) for instance complained about a ‘reign of terror.’

Like Darwin, Huxley had spent time at sea as a naturalist and was later tasked with examining collected samples, including those collected from the deep sea floor by H.M.S. Cyclops in 1857. Sea floor sediment had been collected and preserved in alcohol for later study. The task of the Cyclops incidentally had been to lay telegraph cables between Britain and America. Upon examination, Huxley noticed something apparently odd about one sample. He observed that a thin film of jelly like mucus had collected on the top of the sediment as embedded tiny granules. These granules appeared to move when examined under a microscope. As a result he thought he had found the original protoplasm of life in the gelatinous ooze. Protoplasm was at the time believed to be an organic substance that formed the basis of life, and therefore something of this nature, found in ocean sediment, suited the evolutionary speculation of the period (see figure 2). Haeckel had recently proposed that such an entity existed as the precursor of life, and Huxley rather excitedly wrote to Haeckel in October 1868 the following comments offering to name the new ‘Moner’ after him.

Drawing from
Drawings of Bathybius, top left, alongside various plankton.
Figure 2. Drawings of Bathybius, top left, alongside various plankton.

‘ … a new “Moner” which lies at the bottom of the Atlantic to all appearances, and gives rise to some wonderful calcified bodies. I have christened it Bathybius Haeckelii [sic], and I hope you will not be ashamed of your god-child. I will send you some of the mud with the paper.’1

But Huxley’s enthusiasm meant that he had not carried out sufficient chemical tests. Instead he launched into promotion of this precipitate of jelly as the original protoplasm of life. Haeckel, after examining Bathybius for himself, agreed with Huxley that it was the original primordial slime, or Urschleim, from which all other living things have arisen. In July of 1870 Huxley wrote a letter to Nature commenting that Haeckel agreed with all of his main points regarding Bathybius.
 
‘The longest of the papers … is devoted to a careful study of Bathybius, and the associated Coccoliths and Coccospheres; and it is a mattaer [sic] of great satisfaction that Prof. Haeckel has arrived at conclusions which, in all the main points, agrees [sic] with my own respecting these remarkable organisms.’2

It would seem then Huxley’s enthusiasm was partly captivated by comparison with various zooplanktons such as coccoliths, and with penicillin, which was usually seen to develop in the dark. Several years later in February 1874 Haeckel wrote a glowing piece in Nature, entitled ‘Scientific Worthies: Thomas Henry Huxley,’ in which he praised Huxley for his contribution to Darwin’s theory.

‘After Charles Darwin had, in 1859, reconstructed this most important biological theory, and by his epoch-making theory of Natural Selection placed it on an entirely new foundation, Huxley was the first who extended it to man, and in 1863, in his celebrated three Lectures on “Man’s Place in Nature,” admirably worked out its most important developments. With luminous clearness, and convincing certainty, he has here established the fundamental law, that, in every respect, the anatomical differences between man and the highest apes are of less value than those between the highest and the lowest apes. Especially weighty is the evidence adduced for this law, in the most important of all organs, the brain; and by this, the objections of Prof. Richard Owen are, at the same time, thoroughly refuted. Not only has the Evolution Theory received from Prof. Huxley a complete demonstration of its immense importance, not only has it been largely advanced by his valuable comparative researches, but its spread among the general public has been largely due to his well-known popular writings. In these he has accomplished the difficult task of rendering most fully and clearly intelligible, to an educated public of very various ranks, the highest problems of philosophical Biology. From the lowest to the highest organisms, from Bathybius up to man, he has elucidated the connecting law of development.’3

But Huxley’s enthusiasm meant that he had not carried out sufficient chemical tests. Instead he launched into promotion of this precipitate of jelly as the original protoplasm of life.

Such written evidence shows that Haeckel and Huxley were thinking of evolution as a complete and unified theory extending from protoplasm to mankind. The establishment of Bathybius then was a foundational part of this process. In order to find further samples of Bathybius two other surveying ships were despatched, HMS Lightning, and HMS Porcupine. They failed to find samples of Bathybius. However, the Challenger expedition, which left Portsmouth in 1872, was more successful. After two years sailing towards Japan the scientists aboard noted that samples of sea floor sediment preserved in alcohol displayed evidence of Bathybius. However, what was also noteworthy was that samples stored in seawater did not contain the gelatinous ooze. This led John Buchanan, who was the ship’s chemist, to test the samples and he discovered that what was found was in fact hydrated calcium sulphate (CaSO4 ·2H2 O), a precipitated ‘jelly’ that was a reaction to the presence of alcohol on the mud. The Duke of Argyll later commented on this episode.

‘One of Mr. Murray’s assistants poured a large quantity of spirits of wine into a bottle containing some pure sea-water, when lo! the wonderful protoplasm Bathybius appeared. It was the chemical precipitate of sulphate of lime produced by the mixture of alcohol and sea-water.’4

This information was later relayed back to Huxley. He began to realise that he had made a mistake and wrote an open letter to the journal Nature in August 1875 reporting the view of the Challenger’s naturalists that Bathybius may not be organic after all.

‘Prof. Wyville Thomson further informs me that the best effort of the Challenger’s staff have failed to discover Bathybius in a fresh state, and that it is seriously suspected that the thing to which I gave that name is little more than sulphate of lime, precipitated in a flocculent state from the sea-water by the strong alcohol in which the specimens of the deep-sea soundings which I examined were preserved.’5

He seems to have realised the unfortunate predicament he was in during August 1875, writing to Michael Foster that

‘I have just had a long letter from Wyville Thomson. The Challenger inclines to think that Bathybius is a mineral precipitate! in which case some enemy will probably say that it is a product of my precipitation. So mind, I was the first to make that “goak.” Old Ehrenberg suggested something of the kind to me, but I have not his letter here. I shall eat my leek handsomely, if any eating has to be done.’6

One such drawing used in Haeckel’s book The History of Creation, of the life cycle of a fictional Moneron name, Protomyxa aurantiaca.
Figure 3. One such drawing used in Haeckel’s book The History of Creation, of the life cycle of a fictional Moneron name, Protomyxa aurantiaca.

So Huxley, in August 1875, appeared to accept that Bathybius was an embarrassing mistake. However, even as late as August 1879 he continued to leave a measure of doubt in people’s minds, perhaps though for social reasons. This equivocation was on the basis that the matter of his ‘friend’ was not settled, stating that ‘my own judgment is in an absolute state of suspension about it’, and that the matter could not be settled without a further voyage of discovery.7 It would seem that the reason for such ambiguous statements at this time was because the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) of that year had argued in his address that Bathybius was the protoplasm of life. Huxley was apparently careful to spare the President embarrassment. Haeckel for his part continued to argue that Bathybius was real until 1883 despite Huxley’s comments, and for some further 50 years a popular book of Haeckel’s, The History of Creation, (first published 1876) contained evidence for various Monera with entirely fictional drawings until the final edition of 1923 (figure 3).8 In 1868 Haeckel had first published 73 pages in a prestigious German journal on various fictional Monera with scientific sounding names such as Protamoeba primitivia, even giving his fraudulent creations their own detailed life cycles.9 It was in the same year of 1868 that Huxley identified Bathybius. One recent historian of science, Angela Colling, has recently commented that the reason there was reluctance to accept that Bathybius was not organic was because it was seen as playing a key role in the development of the theory of evolution, and therefore many scientists wanted it to be true.10
 
While many leading scientists such as Huxley and Haeckel wanted to believe that Bathybius was real, the Duke of Argyll later commented upon the find and was critical of the scientific establishment for being caught up in a wave of secular enthusiasm that blinded their critical capacity. In an article in 1887 entitled ‘A Great Lesson’, he comments that the ‘naturalists of the Challenger began their voyage in the full Bathybian faith,’ but Argyll praised John Murray for keeping his mental balance when no evidence for ‘the pelagic protoplasm’ was found as the Challenger continually brought fresh material up from the ‘bathysmal bottoms’.11 The Duke noted that Bathybius was only ever found in specimens located within Huxley’s laboratory in Jermyn Street and that Huxley was its chief sponsor, but it was only by an accident that the eminent scientists on board the Challenger solved the mystery. He commented that this ‘was bathos indeed’ and that the episode provided ‘a great lesson … ’ for science.4
 
The Duke of Argyll commented also that there was no logical reason for the acceptance of Bathybius by the science community. Argyll noted that Bathybius was merely a ‘slimy mucus,’ that was ‘structureless to all microscopic examination.’11 As such it was much like other sedimentary material dredged from the ocean bottom, but according to the Duke some were so driven by enthusiasm to find evidence for the beginning of life that their scientific integrity failed them, or worse it was a deliberate conspiracy to deceive. The Duke of Argyll commented that the ‘ultra-Darwinian enthusiasts were enchanted.’11
 
‘Here was a grand idea. It would be well to find missing links; but it would be better to find the primordial pabulum out of which all living things had come. … Haeckel clapped his hands and shouted out “Eureka” loudly. Even the cautious and discriminating mind of Professor Huxley was caught by this new and grand generalization of the “physical basis of life.” It was announced by him to the British Association in 1868. Dr. Will Carpenter took up the chorus. He spoke of “a living expanse of protoplasmic substance,” penetrating with its living substance the “whole mass” of the “oceanic mud.” A fine new Greek name was devised for this mother slime, and it was christened “Bathybius,” from the consecrated deeps in which it lay. The conception ran like wildfire through the popular literature of science, and here again there was something like a coming Plebiscite in its favour. Expectant imagination soon played its part. Wonderful movements were seen in this mysterious slime. It became an “irregular network,” and it could be seen gradually “altering its form,” so that “entangled granules gradually changed their relative positions … . This is a case in which a ridiculous error and a ridiculous credulity were the direct results of theoretical preconceptions. Bathybius was accepted because of its supposed harmony with Darwin’s speculations.”’11
Huxley had made a very basic mistake as a result of his clouded judgement in attempting to find evidence to prove his Darwinian hypothesis, and the science community was swept along with similar enthusiasm. Ironically such lack of care by Huxley is in sharp contrast to his own statement that ‘The man of science, in fact, simply uses with scrupulous exactness the methods which we all, habitually and at every moment, use carelessly.’12 However, it would seem that his careless mistake had served a useful purpose in promoting Darwin’s theory as truth for at least seven years.

Huxley though objected to the Duke of Argyll’s criticism that he was so driven by evolution to accept Bathybius, and in private correspondence commented that the Duke of Argyll had been making capital out of the circumstances surrounding Bathybius. He complained that ‘ … the theologians cannot get it out of their heads, that as they have creeds, to which they must stick at all hazards, so have the men of science. There is no more ridiculous delusion.’13 Even in 1890 Huxley was still complaining that ‘Bathybius is too convenient a stick to beat this dog with to be ever given up’.14 A few years earlier in 1887 Huxley wrote.

‘What is meant by my being caught by a generalization about the physical basis of life I do not know; still less can I understand the assertion that Bathybius was accepted because of its supposed harmony with Darwin’s speculations. That which interested me in the matter was the apparent analogy of Bathybius with other well-known forms of lower life, such as the plasmodia of the Myxomycetes and the Rhizopods. Speculative hopes or fears had nothing to do with the matter; and if Bathybius were brought up alive from the bottom of the Atlantic tomorrow the fact would not have the slightest bearing, that I can discern, upon Mr. Darwin’s speculations, or upon any of the disputed problems of biology. It would merely be one elementary organism the more added to the thousands already known.’15

Huxley protested his innocence of charges that it was a deliberate mistake, but his own statements and those of Haeckel show how important something like Bathybius was towards the development of a universal evolutionary theory.

Should this error be recognised as a simple mistake or a deliberate one? Such a level of carelessness does not tie in with Huxley’s own statements and his high-ranking position as a scientist, and the error did have the effect of promoting evolution in the late nineteenth century. It would seem though that many leading scientists, including Huxley, were swept away with enthusiasm to believe that the chemical jelly was in fact a primitive life form. The fallout from Bathybius though rumbled on for a number of years following. Huxley protested his innocence of charges that it was a deliberate mistake, but his own statements and those of Haeckel show how important something like Bathybius was towards the development of a universal evolutionary theory. As already noted, Haeckel commented that from the ‘lowest to the highest organisms, from Bathybius up to man, [Huxley] has elucidated the connecting law of development.’3 And Huxley stated that ‘Haeckel has arrived at conclusions which, in all the main points, agrees with my own respecting these remarkable organisms.’2
 

Reign of terror

While the Duke of Argyll was critical of the way the evidence for Bathybius was handled, he also complained of a ‘reign of terror’ that was evident in the Royal Society against those who disagreed with Darwin’s theory. The Duke for instance commented on Huxley’s use of personal attacks in arguing his case. ‘My sincere respect for Professor Huxley forbids me from following him into the field of personal polemics, even if this Review were a fitting place for such exercitations.’16
 
The main cause of his accusation of a ‘reign of terror’ was to do with Darwin’s findings relating to the formation of coral that were questioned by John Murray. Murray was apparently ‘strongly advised against the publication of his views in derogation of Darwin’s long-accepted theory of the coral islands, and was actually induced to delay it for two years.’17 Darwin had followed Lyell in arguing that coral grew upwards on volcanic outcrops of rock as a great continent in the Pacific had slowly subsided into the ocean floor. They did not believe that coral could grow on softer sediment. However, Murray, with support from Sir Wyville Thomson and other scientists on the Challenger, had argued instead that coral could grow on softer sediment and further that it was possible for coral on the sea bottom to be elevated towards the surface as reefs build upwards. This was in contradiction of Darwin’s ideas of coral formation. The Duke of Argyll commented that Darwin’s theory was a dream, and with regard to this episode that:

‘In a recent article in this Review I had occasion to refer to the curious power which is sometimes exercised on behalf of certain accepted opinions … in establishing a sort of Reign of Terror in their own behalf, sometimes in philosophy, sometimes in science.’17

The former President of the British Association, the Duke of Argyll, continued to argue that all was not well with the way science was being presented, with evidence that Huxley and others were engaged in rhetorical and inconsistent arguments, this because of a perceived commitment to Darwinian presuppositions. Of course Huxley protested his innocence of any such charge of bullying. In a paper entitled, Science falsely so called, the Duke observed that Huxley moved from science to metaphysics without acknowledging the switch in reasoning that he makes.

‘The first of these [points] concerns the use which Professor Huxley makes of the word “science.” In common parlance this word is now very much confined to the physical sciences, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy. But Professor Huxley evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes metaphysics and philosophy. Under cover of this wide sweep of his net, he assumes to speak with the special authority of a scientific expert upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in him or in anyone else. It seems to be on the strength of this assumption that he designates as pseudo-science any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from his own.’16

The Duke used as an example one of Huxley’s more elaborate works, his volume on The Elements of Comparative Anatomy, published around 1864. Huxley was considered an expert in this area, but the Duke considered that such branches of evolutionary science really belong in the ‘region of metaphysics’. The problem was that Huxley was using his authority to gain acceptance that there was ‘a complete “unity of organisation” between [for instance] all vertebrate skulls, from the skull of a man down to the skull of a pike.’ There was concern then that use of authority in science was liable to intimidate men ‘when in reality no sort of authority exists’ and that there were many good scientists who disagreed with Huxley’s ‘metaphysics and philosophy’ and were not ‘inclined to accept his expositions, even in physical science’ when Huxley was going beyond his observations. The Duke also questioned a rather cryptic comment by Huxley, that with evolution there was a tendency for such new ideas to ‘degenerate into fanaticism’, although the Duke of Argyll insisted that there was not just a tendency, but ‘a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.’16
 

Conclusion

Whether or not Bathybius was a deliberate plan to deceive, as the Duke of Argyll suggests it was, this episode certainly exposes Huxley and Haeckel to the charge that they were so driven by their own presuppositions that they were unable to conduct scientific research in a purely objective fashion. In other words, they were indeed misled by their own preconceptions about the truthfulness of a universal theory of evolution. Their own words also show how important the discovery of Bathybius was in establishing the truth of this grand evolutionary progression in the late nineteenth century despite their protestations to the contrary.18 What may also be noted from this affair is that a pattern can be identified that appears to be repeated through history. Flimsy evidence for Darwin’s theory is found and then promoted with an unhealthy zeal that may blind the public to the real nature of scientific discovery. With over-confident statements and pressure to conform to scientific consensus, a ‘reign of terror’ can be seen to develop against those with honest objections to a particular theory. Anyone who dares to object to Darwin’s theory, for instance, may be treated with fierce and personal attacks. Arguments for evolution are also based on rhetoric and presented to the public on the basis of authority with little attempt at presenting real evidence.

Readers’ comments:

Harry C., Canada, 13 August 2010

Christ said, can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? Deception, lies, and bullying cannot advance the cause of science. Science is all about the search for truth, not propaganda. I wonder what these men would have thought if they knew that their disregard for the integrity of science would lead to Hitler and Stalin?

Chandrasekaran M., Australia, 13 August 2010
This is one more of many articles by CMI showing how incorrect presuppositions or assumptions or axioms affect thinking and expectation into incorrect direction and therefore incorrect outcome as well.
Evolution science world view has negative impacts in geology, astronomy, biology, sociology …

Bert M., Australia, 26 August 2010
One should not be surprised by the “reign of terror” tactic employed by the “establishment” scientific towards anyone who dares to disagree with one of their pet theories. It is one that is now widely used in many fields. As an example, one needs to look no further than the current debate on climate change. Anyone who dares to argue against the current pronouncements on man induced climate change can expect all manner of abuse and ridicule. As a further example, argue against gay marriage and you are immediately dismissed as homophobic. Christians have been under attack for the last two thousand years so why should today be any different?

Claude J., United States, 27 August 2010
I find the similarities of the scientist in 1800 with the ones of today. The great lies they will tell to prove global warming. The fact they will attack anybody that disagrees with them. They would love to prove that man has control over the planet not GOD.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. Huxley, T.H., Letter to Ernst Haeckel, 6th October 1868. Return to text.
  2. Huxley, T.H., Life in the Deep Sea, Nature, p. 187, 2nd July 1870. Return to text.
  3. Haeckel, E., Scientific Worthies: Thomas Henry Huxley, Nature, p. 258. February 1874. Return to text.
  4. Duke of Argyll, A Great Lesson, The Nineteenth Century 22:308, September 1887. Return to text.
  5. Huxley, T.H., Notes from the Challenger, Nature 12:315–316, August 1875. Return to text.
  6. Huxley, T.H., Letter to Michael Foster, 11th August 1875. Return to text.
  7. Huxley, T.H., Report to BAAS, Nature, 28th August 1879. Return to text.
  8. Grigg, R., Ernst Haeckel, Creation 18(2):33–36, March 1996. Return to text.
  9. Haeckel, E., Monographie der Moneren, Jenaische Zeitschrift für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft, Leipzig (Monograph on the Monera, The Jena Journal of Medicine and Science, Leipzig) 4:64, 1868. In Grigg, ref. 8. Return to text.
  10. Colling, A., Science Matters: Discovering the Deep Oceans, Open University, p. 29, 1995. Return to text.
  11. Duke of Argyll, ref. 4, pp. 307–308. Return to text.
  12. Huxley, T.H., On the Education Value of the Natural History Sciences, 1854. Sourced via Colling, ref. 10, p. 32–33. Return to text.
  13. Huxley, T.H., Letter to unknown person, 30th September 1887. Return to text.
  14. Huxley, T.H., Letter to John Donnelly, 10th October 1890. Return to text.
  15. Huxley, T.H., An Episcopal Trilogy, Science and the Bishops, The Nineteenth Century 22:625–640, November 1887. Return to text.
  16. Duke of Argyll, A Reply: Science Falsely so called, The Nineteenth Century 21:771–774, May 1887. Return to text.
  17. Duke of Argyll, ref. 4, p. 307. Return to text.
  18. Much of the material for this article has been sourced through ‘The Huxley File’ website, ; created by Charles Blinderman, Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology, and David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, Clark University. Return to text.

60 comments:

Church Mouse said...

""The rules of the game - As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true." Carl Wieland in Creation 11(1):47–50, December 1988"

Now that gets my wheels spiniing -As the rules of science were defined by Bacon etc., how could creation have been tested as a conclusion?

Wasn't that what Bacon etc. said?

scohen said...

"I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory. But after the fact, real advances in science are systematically given an evolutionary spin. This reflects the pervasive politicization of science."

Radar, you know this not to be true. Genetic Algorithms were designed to expressly mimic evolution and natural selection. They're also terribly useful.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"There are of course the Big Three long-term organizations who have been around for some time and have long-term projects that have advanced our knowledge."

Hard to believe they've advanced our knowledge one bit when all three of them post obvious and undeniable lies like the one about the moon receding proving a young Earth.

Seriously, you can't find a single creationist website that doesn't post such obvious lies?

And you haven't been in touch with your creationist buddies to correct these embarrassing lies?

radar said...

Sorry scohen, I replied in the wrong thread..scohen, I am willing to be wrong. Are GA generated by a program written by a programmer or did they randomly pop into existence by natural selection plus mutation operating on, say, a piece of linux code?

Or is it a program written by a programmer with intentionality that generates information using the principles of natural selection?

radar said...

whatsit has what of substance to say? What do you know about the Moon, pray tell, that you would share with us? Is it getting closer or moving away and how do you know?

radar said...

How is evolution tested as a conclusion?

Conclusions result from tests. Conclusions are not the test. Since information and life and existence have no natural source (and scientists have been trying to find one unsuccessfully) and all testing has proven this, they therefore have a supernatural source.

The Bible is evidence that this source is the Creator God, self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, the God who created all things ex nihilo...from nothing.

Darwinists also call upon creation ex nihilo but claim that such things just happen by accident in the unobservable past. But their hypothesis is not supported by the findings of science, which shows that the Universe is fine-tuned for life, the Solar System is fine-tuned for life, and that organisms are actually intricate hardware and software self-replicating machines with non-material information and life included.

Haeckel and Huxley, Dawkins and Myers...religious devotion to Darwinism with lots of propaganda and no real evidence behind it all.

Anonymous said...

Haeckel...

There's that name again. Yet when someone mentions 'Hartnett' a few times you ask: 'What's your obsession?'

Can't get to sleep, chew your nails or something?

Anonymous said...

Talking about Hartnett: his article with the bogus maths is still there on Creation.com.

And you call this a site that has advanced our knowledge?

Hilarous.

scohen said...

Radar, you're clearly moving the goalposts. Dr. John Sanford said very clearly that:

"I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory."

Computer science has benefited from evolutionary theory. Dr. Sanford is wrong (or ignorant, or lying).

scohen said...

"Or is it a program written by a programmer with intentionality that generates information using the principles of natural selection?"

So you admit that natural selection can generate information. Fantastic!

And there's where information comes from!

radar said...

""Or is it a program written by a programmer with intentionality that generates information using the principles of natural selection?"

So you admit that natural selection can generate information. Fantastic!

And there's where information comes from!"


Nice try, but you missed the "programmer/program" part. THAT is where information comes from - The Programmer.

At least it was better than most replies I got.

scohen said...

"Nice try, but you missed the "programmer/program" part. THAT is where information comes from - The Programmer."

I didn't miss that part. That is most certainly *not* where the information comes from. If it was, why didn't the antenna designers from the previous example I posted just design their antenna that way?

Why go through the bother of writing a GA if you had the 'information' to begin with?

At the end of the day, the quote I posted above is either ignorant of the fields mentioned, or a lie.

highboy said...

A human not understanding why The Programmer didn't program something a certain way is not exactly a compelling argument against a Programmer.

scohen said...

Highboy,
That's not what's happening. If you want to understand what a genetic algorithm is or how it works please read up on them here.

Otherwise, considering that I've written several in my life, please pretend that I know what I'm talking about.

The information (the data, as creeper put it in another post) does not come from the programmer. If it did, why create the algorithm in the first place?

scohen said...

Here's the link to the wikipedia page on GAs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

(when I post an actual link, my comment is rejected)

highboy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
scohen said...

I'm sure your wife must feel great when you insult people by implying they're women.

"just because the program isn't how you would do it if you were the programmer doesn't mean there is no Programmer"

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying isn't hard to comprehend, re-read my first comment above again for a refresher.

radar said...

As usual and just like last time, schohen misses the point that a programmer had to write a formal program to produce GA. It doesn't matter what kind of program he wrote to produce the GA but rather that it took design, intentionality and information to write the program before the first GA was produced. Man, I just cannot understand why you cannot see this particular forest for the trees...

Anonymous whatsit said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous whatsit said...

"As usual and just like last time, schohen misses the point that a programmer had to write a formal program to produce GA"

scohen didn't miss that point at all. The formal program mimics and executes mutation and natural selection. We know that both mutation and natural selection occur in nature, so mimicking these in a controlled setting for other purposes shouldn't be that remarkable. If somebody wrote a program or algorithm to mimic, for example, the movement of stars, would you declare their results invalid because the program was written by a programmer?

As another commenter pointed out in the previous post, the information that wasn't there before (e.g. the antenna design) was not programmed or designed by the programmer. You seem to be making a category error by focusing on what the petri dish is made of instead of what's going on inside the petri dish.

Have a look at this article: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm

Simple question: who (or what) designed the antenna?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I don't care, what you've supposedly written, I'm merely stating that just because the program isn't how you would do it if you were the programmer doesn't mean there is no Programmer"

scohen didn't say that's not how he would do it, he said that this is the whole point of doing genetic algorithms to begin with: the genetic algorithm generates designs that are not human-made, in that no human sat down and designed that antenna.

Anonymous said...

"How is evolution tested as a conclusion?"

Through verifiable, falsifiable predictions.

"What do you know about the Moon, pray tell, that you would share with us? Is it getting closer or moving away and how do you know?"

Have you really missed the last few times this was discussed in your comments section?

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a certain rate.

2. Creationists have claimed that this shows that the Earth can't be over 4 billion years old, since the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth would have the moon colliding with the Earth less than 2 billion years ago.

3. The math on which this claim is based has been shown to be faulty, and the claim is completely false.

4. The false claim continues to be posted on creationist sites, including the top three you recommend here, and which you claim "advance our knowledge".

These sites are demonstrably posting lies. I suspect there are many others, but you can find instances of this particular lie by doing a search on "moon receding" on each of those sites.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
highboy said...

"As usual and just like last time, schohen misses the point that a programmer had to write a formal program to produce GA. It doesn't matter what kind of program he wrote to produce the GA but rather that it took design, intentionality and information to write the program before the first GA was produced. Man, I just cannot understand why you cannot see this particular forest for the trees..."

Exactly right.

I also love these anonymous trolls who continuously call radar a liar and mock every thread and when highboy questions someone's toughness they get all worked up. LOL. You guys are a joke.

Scohen, what you're saying is easy to comprehend sure, it just doesn't make sense. If you don't like my remarks, stop with the stupid appeals to emotion every time you come across a different viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

What's with the appeal to sexism?

scohen said...

" If somebody wrote a program or algorithm to mimic, for example, the movement of stars, would you declare their results invalid because the program was written by a programmer?"

Exactly. Radar and highboy, think on that for a while.
In addition, the original claim was that evolutionary theory didn't produce anything useful to 'operational sciences'. This is clearly false.

I'm also at a loss to where I've appealed to emotion.

And radar, is your policy on insults along the lines of "they're ok as long as it's my side" or "derision is not an argument"?

Church Mouse said...

"How is evolution tested as a conclusion?"

"Through verifiable, falsifiable predictions."

Makes sense, so I assume the same goes for creation, right? What I was askin greally was what some of these verifiable predictions would be for creation. cos what you're this Wieland is saying is that if somebody reached creation as a conclusion, they wouldn't be allowed.

Well - how can they reach such a conclusion without testing it? And who would tell them they can't do it?

And BTW who is this highboy and why does he behave so poorly? Did somebody do something bad to him on this blog? Or somewhere else?

Captain Stubing said...

Oh, and "stupid appeals to emotion" that apparently only highboy can see.

Anonymous said...

Judging from his comments it would seem that it's highboy himself who has trouble keeping emotions out of the discussion...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"How is evolution tested as a conclusion?"

Tested as a hypothesis and a scientific theory, rather. Through falsifiable, verifiable predictions, as I've seen discussed on this blog before.

"Conclusions result from tests. Conclusions are not the test."

True, and unremarkable.

"Since information and life and existence have no natural source (and scientists have been trying to find one unsuccessfully) and all testing has proven this, they therefore have a supernatural source."

How would you prove that information and life and existence have no natural source? Seems to me that that's not something you can prove - and in some cases, the opposite has either been demonstrated or may soon be demonstrated. You're proposing a "god of the gaps" argument, and that hasn't fared so well historically.

I'm puzzled by the inclusion of "existence" in this list. This is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one, and we have no reason to believe that there was a time before existence, i.e. a reason for existence itself to have been created.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The Bible is evidence that this source is the Creator God, self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, the God who created all things ex nihilo...from nothing."

No, the Bible is a document that features speculation on this subject by some people long ago. There are other such documents. Are they all "evidence"? What do we do when they disagree with each other?

"Darwinists also call upon creation ex nihilo"

Completely false.

"but claim that such things just happen by accident"

Completely false.

"in the unobservable past."

Yay, you got one! The past itself is unobservable. Though we can gather clues about the past based on the evidence left behind.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"But their hypothesis is not supported by the findings of science,"

Not your strawman claims above perhaps, but the actual theory of evolution or the current understanding of geology are supported by the findings of science. Sorry. If you have scientific proof otherwise, go and be rich and famous.

"which shows that the Universe is fine-tuned for life, the Solar System is fine-tuned for life,"

Our solar system being fine-tuned for life isn't much of a mystery. If it weren't suitable for life, life wouldn't have started to exist here.

"and that organisms are actually intricate hardware and software self-replicating machines with non-material information and life included."

The first thing you have here is an argument from incredulity: "this is so complex that I can't imagine that it evolved naturally".

Second, "information is non-material and therefore supernatural". Well, not quite. It's not material in nature, but it is abstract and inextricably linked to material things. Consider the fact that information ceases to exist once the material carrier is destroyed (hard drive smashed, DNA crushed).

Third, re. "life included". Well it's not as if all these molecules just sit there and then some magic "life" is breathed on top. Life is the ongoing interplay of chemical and electrical processes in the organism. If there's a crucial interruption to one of these parts (say, stop the flow of air to the lungs), then the processes come to a stop and the organism ceases to be alive.

highboy said...

"You know, highboy, scohen was extremely civil with you"

No, he wasn't. I made a comment in regards to programming/programmer without even addressing him personally and got this:

"pretend I know what I'm talking about"

right after he let me know how many GA's he's written of course, as if telling someone you're an expert over the internet automatically disqualifies an opposing argument. He's not the only one on this blog that has a nasty habit of performing such tactics. If he disagreed with my argument or felt I misunderstood him, he simply do so without feeling that he personally was having his intelligence questioned. Get it slick?

In any event, none of you have been even remotely civil so you can beg radar to shut me up all you want but at the end of the day, you should simply describe the guy who is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read these posts, that way the police can catch them.

"Exactly. Radar and highboy, think on that for a while. "

No one said the results should be thrown out simply because the results were written by a programmer. I merely made the point, originally, that the results don't disqualify a programmer. Why the hell this was taken as a personal afront to you I'll never know, but why you take so many viewpoints personally I'll never know either.

radar said...

"Second, "information is non-material and therefore supernatural". Well, not quite. It's not material in nature, but it is abstract and inextricably linked to material things. Consider the fact that information ceases to exist once the material carrier is destroyed (hard drive smashed, DNA crushed)."

Nope. Bad argument. I have already provided instances of transmission of information that prove that there is no material form or substance to it. No mass, no weight, no volume...only the containers are material. Break the container and the information is scrambled so that the receiver cannot understand it.

"abstract" and "non-material" are two different concepts altogether.

radar said...

scohen, the point is that natural selection is part of the created organism. You cannot claim 'victory' for random, unplanned evolution with a planned, intentional program that uses the process of natural selection that is, in my opinion, part of the design of organisms. Since GA is not something that randomly appears and since it was designed it actually supports my position and not yours. Evolutionary theory starts with randomness and blind chance. Programs do not fit the bill. You are wrong.

A program that mimics the movements of the stars would prove what, exactly?

radar said...

I have noticed and removed every comment that included a certain women's product. If your comment disappeared, that is why. Freedom of speech, yes, but civility also.

Second, Blogger's anti-spam controls have been removing comments with links or some key words. This weekend I will review this and see if I can "tune up" their filter. Thus the mystery of the disappearing comments.

Third, when a commenter makes an authoritative statement with no factual evidence, don't expect an answer because you are not an authority. Thus links can be useful but blogger is a problem. So post links as text for now until I get blogger fixed or changed.

Finally, scohen, you can argue until you are blue in the face and no doubt sincerely but you do not understand the initial concept. If GA's suddenly appeared on some guy's computer and began populating it, we would call that evolution. If a programmer designs a formal program to generate GA, that is called design. It only does what the code that was written allows or causes it to do.

Anonymous said...

"In any event, none of you have been even remotely civil so you can beg radar to shut me up all you want but at the end of the day, you should simply describe the guy who is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read these posts, that way the police can catch them."

Same goes for the guy who forced you to reply to scohen's comment by making derogatory remarks towards women.

Practice what you preach, sir.

scohen said...

"scohen, the point is that natural selection is part of the created organism"

That is an assertion not backed up by any evidence at all. AFAIK, natural selection is performed by the environment *on* a population of organisms.

"You cannot claim 'victory' for random, unplanned evolution with a planned, intentional program "

That's not correct, genetic algorithms aren't inherently planned. The results they give are often garbage.


And you're getting away from the original point. Genetic algorithms:

a. Were created to mimic natural selection.

b. Incredibly useful (ask NASA)

And both of those points directly contradict the quote in your post.

scohen said...

" If GA's suddenly appeared on some guy's computer and began populating it, we would call that evolution"

No, that would be abiogenesis. Actually, that wouldn't be right either because computers and code aren't alive. That would be spontaneous code generation.

Why on earth do you think you get to define these terms? Evolution is a process that happens to living organisms. It doesn't say how those organisms came into being.

creeper said...

From what I recall, the correct way to treat a troll is not to feed them, and highboy certainly has been acting like one in this thread. Certainly his level civility has been abominable.

So when he goes off like that, let's just not feed him.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Agreed, creeper.

Anonymous said...

So you deleted comments other than hb's? Man, it seems as though you're on a bit of a slippery slope here buddy. Seriously, Radar, you should just shut down comments altogether, either that, or move on to topics that absolutely nobody cares about, you know, like a post on the basics of online bible study and comprehension.

By the way, it appears that you are again confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Mutation plus natural selection is what evolution is all about, and you know that. You also know that saying "I don't know" to the question of where life came from in no way impacts the theory of evolution. Just like whether or not "GA's suddenly appeared on some guy's computer and began populating it", has zero to do with your statement that "evolutionary theory didn't produce anything useful to 'operational sciences'", which, as Scohen has demonstrated, is completely false.

Radar also says above,

"Darwinists also call upon creation ex nihilo but claim that such things just happen by accident in the unobservable past. But their hypothesis is not supported by the findings of science, which shows that the Universe is fine-tuned for life, the Solar System is fine-tuned for life"

I read somewhere that saying the universe is "fine tuned for life" is like saying that water is finely tuned to be liquid at room temperature. Here is a nice document on the topic, if anyone is interested,

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Oh and, as always, and as others have already pointed out, the "darwinist" you describe above is made entirely of straw and only exists in the mind of YECs. Sigh.

Anyway, hb obviously has an axe to grind with scohen as he always comes back at him with some kind of vitriolic response (not that they are all that different from most of his other posts, mind you). I suspect it has to do with some history between the two which likely ended up with hb getting obliterated in an argument and he's still hostile about it. Or maybe it's just because he's a massively angry religious bigot.

Oh and, Tim, way to keep things classy by bringing sexist insults to the table. Seriously, THIS set you off "pretend I know what I'm talking about". And you claim that others are "emotional"?

Finally, welcome to Radaractive Church Mouse, we "darwinist" commenters may not agree on everything but one thing we do know is that this blog is C-R-A-Z-Y, with a capital "C". Interesting that most/all new commenters are not supporters of Radar's worldview. Hmmm...

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

scohen, natural selection is a design feature of the organism. From a large variety of information within the genome certain choices are made. It cannot work without the information being present in the first place. GA are not possible without a programmer and a program. Organisms are not possible without a Creator and a creation.

Many posts have been made that show processes like the fact that the mother lays the framework for the child, thus placing a barrier to change from one kind of organism to another. There are also switches built-in to the process to facilitate rapid changes in some feature sets, such as the beaks of finches.

Mutations sometimes simply trigger a built-in switch. All organisms require meta-information that guides the reproductive process and that meta-information is specific to that kind of organism.

Mutations are mistakes. Such mistakes sometimes are a duplication that changes the organism's feature seet but this is not new information. Some mistakes are a loss of a function and occasionally that loss will give the organism more viability in a specific scenario ("Citrate bacteria") but will be harmful to the organism in most situations.

Fruit flies, for instance, have been mutated in myriad ways, always stay fruit flies and the mutated forms always die out when lab technicians take their hands off the process. Bacteria remain bacteria. The fuss over the "Arsenic" bacteria revealed by NASA's "Astrobiology" department is typical of Darwinists. Make a big fuss over nothing and then fail to publicize the mistake. It falls to ID and Creationists to point this out usually but now, thankfully, some scientists who are simply focused on science have been sounding alarms. That is why the "Arsenic" bacteria was quickly off the front page, it was because of scientists of all stripes pointing out the grievous misrepresentation of the bacteria and its composition.

creeper said...

Radar, you're confusing the algorithm and the data. The claim is not that the program itself is the result of mutation and natural selection.

The programmer did not create the design of the antenna in the NASA example. He never looked at the design of the antenna and said "I think it would work better if I changed this part" - neither the humans who designed the program nor the program itself do this. The program itself is actually relatively "dumb". Note that there is also no set of previously designed antennas that the algorithm compares.

An antenna design resulting from this process was (1) not designed by the programmer and (2) not designed by the program.

Let me try another tack.

Let's say that someone would like to test evolution and happens to have the luxury either of being able to live for a billion years or of speeding up time, so that in any event this person would actually have the possibility to personally observe macroevolution over an extended time.

So this person, let's call him Billy so I don't have to keep saying "this person", does the following:

Billy can live for billions of years. Good for him. He creates an enormous park and throws in a bunch of different living organisms: roses, rabbits, wolves, bugs, elephants, oak trees, velociraptors, whatever. All kinds of organisms. They're going to live together in this park.

Billy then goes away. Doesn't tend to this park at all. Maybe even forgets about it.

-- creeper

creeper said...

(cont'd)

A billion years later, he remembers his little experiment, and he comes back to this park. He hears sounds. Definitely something alive in here. Phew.

Billy goes to open the gate.

What's he going to find in there?

A creationist would say: something pretty close to what he left behind in the first place. After all, everything just evolved "within kind/baramin". Fair enough.

An evolutionist (for lack of a better word) would say: something rather different than what he left behind. A billion years is a verrrry long time in evolution. Fair enough as well.

Billy goes to open the gate...

But what he finds inside is not the question.

Here's the question: did Billy himself "design" whatever he will find inside that park?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Radar,

"natural selection is a design feature of the organism. From a large variety of information within the genome certain choices are made. It cannot work without the information being present in the first place."

I've seen you make this claim before, but as far as I remember, creation scientists have never come up with any way to investigate this. It should be possible, given how easy it is to study the genetic code today, but this claim lacks any kind of support or evidence.

If I missed some, please let me know. You just made this statement a few comments above: "when a commenter makes an authoritative statement with no factual evidence, don't expect an answer because you are not an authority"

I have not seen any factual evidence for your claim. Shall we discard it?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Canucklehead said:

"So you deleted comments other than hb's? Man, it seems as though you're on a bit of a slippery slope here buddy."

In Radar's defense: I think the comments other than highboy's were those that quoted highboy's rant. It's perfectly understandable that these, too, were deleted.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Second, "information is non-material and therefore supernatural". Well, not quite. It's not material in nature, but it is abstract and inextricably linked to material things. Consider the fact that information ceases to exist once the material carrier is destroyed (hard drive smashed, DNA crushed)."

"Nope. Bad argument."

Unfortunately you don't explain how.

"I have already provided instances of transmission of information that prove that there is no material form or substance to it."

Which does not contradict what I said above: "It's not material in nature, but it is abstract and inextricably linked to material things."

Anonymous whatsit said...

"No mass, no weight, no volume...only the containers are material. Break the container and the information is scrambled so that the receiver cannot understand it."

You say "the information is scrambled". Is that different from "the information is destroyed"? Because as far as I can tell, the moment you destroy the container, the information ceases to exist.

Since you claim that information is supernatural, would you claim that the information continues to exist once its material carrier is destroyed? A bit like a soul leaving the body, that kind of thing? Would that be your claim?

""abstract" and "non-material" are two different concepts altogether."

Correct, and in line with what I said above. Though they are related concepts: something abstract must be non-material, while something non-material doesn't necessarily need to be abstract. We've all agreed on the non-material part, but you're refusing to accept that it is an abstract concept, though you're not explaining why it would/could/should not be.

creeper said...

"Fruit flies, for instance, have been mutated in myriad ways, always stay fruit flies"

But they became a different species of fruit fly, which was what the experiments were about.

"and the mutated forms always die out when lab technicians take their hands off the process."

Which by itself doesn't really tell us all that much. They evolved in laboratory circumstances, perhaps the lack of that was harmful to them. Do you have more data on this?

"Bacteria remain bacteria."

As we would expect. "Bacteria" are at a fairly high level classification in the taxonomic system (domain), so the last thing we would expect them to do is become something other than bacteria.

They did, however, become a different kind (not in the baramin sense) of bacteria.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Canucklehead,

I agree with Anonymous and will defend Radar on this one. He's merely enforcing his actually stated rule of removing offensive language, and he couldn't very well delete Highboy's bizarre statement and leave all the comments that cited this back to him.

It's a different situation from Radar's recent Waterloo on information where he deleted comments that contained no offensive language at all.

-- creeper

scohen said...

"scohen, natural selection is a design feature of the organism."

This is where we differ. If selection is part of the organism, then a 'selected' organism must select itself. That's not what is observed.

"From a large variety of information within the genome certain choices are made."

Made by whom exactly? Unless the organism selects itself somehow (not sure how that will happen) it must be an external factor doing the selection.

"GA are not possible without a programmer and a program"

You are confusing the data (genome) with the program (environment). Thanks to creeper for pointing this out.

"Organisms are not possible without a Creator and a creation."

Evolution is mute on the subject. Evolution happens *after* an organism exists.

"Mutations are mistakes"

By some definition of the word mistake, yes. But do you mean to tell me that your genome doesn't contain mutations? Do you think they're harming you?

Anonymous said...

To be honest, when I first looked at the comments I thought that Scohen's comment calling hb on his bs had also been deleted. Looks like I was wrong. My bad. In the end, I'm probably still just in shock over Radar's complete censorship of opposing arguments/comments on the information post. Such an amazing admission of failure, I guess I didn't think he had it in him.

Anyway, nice seeing your sign on again creeper.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

How is it that a computer program running on software and a BIOS and hardware is supposed to be evidence for evolution? I mean, if natural selection is evidence for design instead of darwin?

Church Cat

Jon Woolf said...

It isn't the program that's evidence for evolution. It's the program's output. To be more precise, the output is proof that Radar's claims about "information" are all wet. Random variation followed by selection against a known set of criteria can indeed generate new information.

Church Mouse said...

"How is it that a computer program running on software and a BIOS and hardware is supposed to be evidence for evolution?"

Good question! Who said that and why ?

Church Mouse said...

"Random variation followed by selection against a known set of criteria can indeed generate new information."

Even better answer! Yup, that makes sense. Yay.

Captain Stubing said...

"I mean, if natural selection is evidence for design instead of darwin?"

Um, how could natural selection be evidence for design? Curious to hear the reasoning behind that.

And how can something be evidence "for darwin"?

Anonymous said...

Radar,

"Such mistakes sometimes are a duplication that changes the organism's feature seet but this is not new information."

If the mistake/mutation changes the organism's feature set, in what way is it not new information?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"How is it that a computer program running on software and a BIOS and hardware is supposed to be evidence for evolution?"

How is it that a petri dish (which was made by man, you know) is supposed to be evidence for evolution?

Clue, free of charge: the interesting bit isn't the petri dish itself.