Search This Blog

Monday, May 21, 2012

In the end, Darwinism is unscientific and Naturalism is philosophically and logically bankrupt!

I ask you today, is there any meaning or purpose to life, to your life?   Do you exist for anything beyond pleasing yourself?   Do you have a moral code?  Why are you here?  Why does anything exist?  How can anything be known?   I would suggest to you that Christianity offers answers while Naturalism simply rigs or ignores the questions.  Please, read on and consider for yourself?

"The word "nature" usually refers to the physical world in its normal condition. If something is "natural," that means it is unmodified by human (intelligent) actions. Many of us love "nature," the unspoiled outdoors, the world of forests and rivers and mountains and meadows.

By adding "ism," however, we get a related but different meaning. "Naturalism" is the belief that in the final analysis, nature is all that there is, and that "nature" is essentially unmodified by anything other than itself. In other words, nature itself is thought to be the ultimate reality...


...Naturalism claims to be the best and most scientific way to seek truth, but it is an extreme case of circular reasoning that has forgotten its objective roots in the knowledge of the world that stands upon divine revelation ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"). Only in theism do we have a personal, living, intelligent cause. Only theism has a sufficient explanation of life in the world. God is a necessary being, but this is exactly what naturalism denies. Thus reason is lost. Truth is lost. Knowledge is lost. Meaning is lost..." - L. Russ Bush III (full article in this post)


Recently I noticed that one of my "science" channels offered by my satellite television provider has a slogan, "Question Everything."   But when they question ANYTHING they begin with HOW DID IT EVOLVE?  Now is that actually SCIENCE or is it an arbitrary metaphysical presumption artificially imposed upon science to only consider a limited set of possibilities?   Real science asks ALL the questions and does not cheat by presupposing or guarantee failure by ruling out some of the answers.

Imagine that Darwinist scientists are like a guy playing a game of Clue with some friends.   He always presumes that Mr. Mustard must be the murderer and so he spends his time trying to connect Mr. Mustard with various weapons in various rooms while everyone else is using their powers of deduction, logic and memory to figure out the actual culprit.   Our poor Darwinist has limited himself to only a .16666666666666~ chance at winning the game by eliminating five of the six available suspects.   But of course that is practically a sure thing compared to the odds against evolution.   I do not have room for all the zeroes involved in the odds against this Universe having happened by chance and randomly become what it is today.   I believe the last time I looked the odds against one ordinary organism evolving at all was like one chance in 10x123rd power?   Some ridiculous number like that and it was computed a few years back, when we were not yet aware of the tremendous complexity of the cell and the reproductive process.  From the web article linked here:

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th Power seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.

Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."

Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."  Hat Tip

The mind boggles...Do Darwinists think automobiles evolve somewhere in the vicinity of Detroit (as an example) and people just harvest them and drive them to dealerships to sell?   Do they think that the Mona Lisa evolved and was then discovered and classified as a great piece of art?   Do they think that little rocks evolve into mountains and mud puddles evolve into oceans?  Do they think about this at all?   

I fear that our modern school systems simply give children a large quantity of information to absorb but unfortunately do not teach them to think.   So when Darwinism is presented as a fact in schools and on the television programs, when it is assumed in magazines and science courses and proclaimed by secular naturalistic scientists in numerous books and so on ad nauseum, the ordinary person does not question at all.  They swallow the concept whole. 

William Paley's teleological explanation for the concept that God created remains the only logical conclusion for today's logical mind, assuming that mind knows the latest findings of biology.   Darwinists will tell you a fellow named Hume refuted the teleological argument (see end of post).  They are of course wrong.   I invite you to research further but for a short summary...

William Paley's Popular Apology

Dan Graves, MSL


The first authoritative date we have for the life of Paley is this day, August 30, 1743. Then, a little more than a month old, he was baptized. A clumsy youth, he turned to study. His father thought that the boy had the clearest head he had ever seen. Although Paley was sufficiently good at mathematics to become first wrangler of his school (that is, he placed highest in the math exams), he became a clergyman. Following the famous John Locke's lead, Paley wrote popular apologetics for Christianity. So well-organized were his works that they became standard textbooks.

View of the Evidences of Christianity was an immediate hit and so was its successor Natural Theology. In Natural Theology he included his famous "watchmaker" argument. If a savage were to find a watch in the middle of the jungle, he would at once suppose it the work of an intelligent being. Nature is far more complex and elaborate than a watch and therefore also requires a designer. View of the Evidences of Christianity argues for the credibility of biblical miracles.

Skeptics over the years attacked Paley's watchmaker argument on philosophical grounds. However, in 2005, researcher Jimin Wang reported detail which appears to be direct evidence of Paley's Watchmaker. Certain cyanobacteria have a "circadian oscillation" which is regulated by a rotary device, composed of proteins, that literally functions as a clock.

Apart from the watchmaker argument, none of Paley's works were highly original. He freely admitted he borrowed whatever he could use from others; to some extent, all theologians must, the field has been so well covered. However, Paley's ideas in a third book Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy anticipated thinkers who came after. "The general consequence of any action may be estimated by asking what would be the consequence if the same actions were generally permitted." This sounds like Kant. Bentham devised his utilitarian ethic after reading Paley's comment that "we should carry out those actions which promote the general happiness and avoid those which diminish it."

Paley was an odd duck. Physically uncoordinated, he once fell off a horse seven times in a single ride to town. He was constantly laughed at (and laughed at himself) because of his absent-mindedness. When he walked it was with weird gesticulations and the tip of his cane in his mouth! Yet he enjoyed people and would draw them out for what they knew. He was a devoted father. And his work was the fitting culmination of a century and a half of natural apologetics which began with John Locke.

Bibliography:
  1. Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity. Editor Tim Dowley. Berkhamsted, Herts, England: Lion Publishing, 1977.
  2. Guillen, Michael. Bridges to Infinity. Los Angeles, Tarcher, 1983. p.122.
  3. Jimin Wang, "Recent Cyanobacterial Kai Protein Structures Suggest a Rotary Clock," Structure 13 (2005): 735-41.
  4. Kunitz, Stanley L. British Authors Before 1800; a biographical dictionary. New York: H. W. Wilson, 1952.
  5. Paley, William. Moral and Political Philosophy. New York, S. King, 1824.
  6. "Paley, William." Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1921-1996.
  7. "Paley, William." Edwards, Paul, editor. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York, Macmillan, 1967.
  8. Sampson, George. Concise Cambridge History of English Literature.Cambridge, 1961.
Last updated April, 2007.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The existence of the Monarch Butterfly alone falsifies Darwinism. Just one organism. Go ahead and study it. It takes four forms, the caterpillar does not reproduce caterpillars and the butterfly does not reproduce butterflies! Monarchs lay eggs, eggs become caterpillars, who then become a chrysalis and morph into butterflies, who then lay eggs.

Monarchs migrate North every spring and the first two or three generations of the organism are born to live maybe a month and then die. Each succeeding generation of butterfly is born farther north following the Milkweed plants and then the last generation is born in Canada or Michigan or Minnesota and that generation lives nine months!

The "Methuselah" generation migrates South to an area in Mexico, the Transvolcanic range, and they fly from the far North of the US and Southern Canada to central Mexico, going about fifty miles or so a day. Millions of Monarchs wind up in the same place that their grandparents or great-grandparents hibernated at the year before!

Caterpillars of Monarchs eat Milkweed, which is poisonous. Butterflies of the organism eat nectar. They are like two completely different organisms and there are two change stages between them. No way can Darwinism explain this!!!



Here is a short excerpt.  It would be hard to imagine an open-minded critical thinker who could watch this movie and still be a die-hard Darwinist!   Go ahead and see for yourself!


There is a clear line drawn in the sand.  Darwinists stand on the side of naturalism and anti-theism.  I could call them Evo-Atheists.  Creationists remain on the side of both discernible evidence and the written testimony of the Bible.

Funny thing is that everyday operational science has nothing to do with Darwinism.   Ordinary everyday research and discovery does not use the hypothesis but, on the other hand, the designs of organisms are continually being studied and copied and used by scientists to benefit mankind.

I stand on the side of Truth and God.  Christians and Theists invented modern science and the evil side tries to co-opt it.  My side established morality and the other side seeks to warp it and twist it and destroy it.  My side has the scientists who established virtually every major scientific discipline.  The other side casts the rules of evidence aside and presents fairy tales as facts.

Evil is telling children they come from millions of years of death and suffering, from microbes and worms and lizards and apes.  Evil is lying about evidence like talkorigins does.  Evil is being in the censorship business as is the NAS and the NCSE.  Darwinists fear the truth, they try to stamp it out, they seek to cast all creationists out of schools and scientific institutions.   If they do not turn away from this and repent, there will be a day they face God as people who intentionally led children AWAY from God!

I have learned that people get angry and try to shut you up when they cannot defend what they believe.  What do Darwinists do in this world?  They try to shut creationists and ID proponents mouths and cast them out of their institutions.  This is out of fear and nothing else.  Darwinists fear that the common man will learn the truth.  But the TRUTH always comes out.

Below is a description of Naturalism.  Have you fallen into the trap?

Naturalism: A World View

By L. Russ Bush III

The word "nature" usually refers to the physical world in its normal condition. If something is "natural," that means it is unmodified by human (intelligent) actions. Many of us love "nature," the unspoiled outdoors, the world of forests and rivers and mountains and meadows.

By adding "ism," however, we get a related but different meaning. "Naturalism" is the belief that in the final analysis, nature is all that there is, and that "nature" is essentially unmodified by anything other than itself. In other words, nature itself is thought to be the ultimate reality.

Nature is dynamic and active, but according to the world view known as "naturalism," there is nothing beyond nature that has any causal influence or effect upon nature. Either there is no God or God has no effect or influence on nature. Some might suggest that nature itself may be thought of as a creative being. Naturalism claims that life on earth arose from natural substances by natural selection for natural ends. There is no reality that can properly be called super-natural. Spiritual realities, according to naturalism, are either illusions or else they are merely complex or unusual natural realities.

Since the eighteenth century, a materialistic philosophy has been gaining influence in the western world. Previously, most people in the West believed that the world was a divine creation, but naturalistic thinking gradually challenged that view and sought to replace it, first with naturalistic methods and then with a more comprehensive naturalistic philosophy.

Prior to the rise of naturalism as a prominent world view (or comprehensive mind-set), most western people believed that God had created the world and was responsible for its form and for its very existence. It was understood that God was upholding all things by the word of His power, for in the beginning God had created all things. Since God was a living being, it was logical to expect life in the world, because life comes from life. Twentieth century naturalism built itself on the idea that the universe (and everything in it, including life itself) came into being because of a natural quantum fluctuation (or by some other strictly natural means) and developed by natural processes from its original natural state to its present natural state. Life arose from non-life.

Naturalism affirms no God except the god of impersonal, non-living, undesigned, physical chemistry. A natural process of change is essentially random and/or undirected, but natural processes actually seem to "select" some processes and activities in the sense that "better" or stronger ones survive while others perish. Naturalists believe that this unconscious, non-directed "selection" process along with random genetic fluctuations (i.e., mutations) are the keys that explain the origin of the world of living things as we know it today.

Thus the naturalistic "world view" is the overall belief that nature itself is all that there is. God did not design it. Intelligence was a result not a cause of the developing world. Nature formed itself by strictly natural processes. This claim has several implications.

On the earth there seems to be a host of different conscious personalities. Naturalism by definition says that personality arose (evolved) from the non-personal, from that which was matter and energy only. There is nothing in a naturalistic universe that is essentially personal.

Not only must personality have arisen from the non-personal, it also supposedly arose spontaneously, without direction or guidance from any personal source. This would appear to violate the natural law of cause and effect. Energy dissipates. Complexity changes by simplifying. No system spontaneously becomes more complex unless additional energy and order is added from outside the system. A "cause" must either contain the "effect" or at least be sufficiently complex to be capable of producing the less complex "effect." Personality, however, is far more complex than the natural chemical and physical order of things observed in nature. How could this be? The naturalist usually assigns such questions to the intellectual dust bin. Personal beings are here (they and you and I exist), and thus naturalists accept that fact regardless of the significant improbability of highly complex and intelligent and self-aware personality naturally arising from the non-personal reality of non-intelligent and non-aware matter.

The same with life! Naturalists admit that there is life (usually they are alive). But to maintain their naturalism, they argue that nature spontaneously and without direction or external cause produced life out of non-life. The lack of evidence for and high improbability of this kind of event does not dissuade these thinkers,  because (they say) it only had to happen once. In fact the genetic similarity of all life forms leads naturalists to assume that all life must have come from a single simple cell or collection of chemical processes approximating a working cell. This simple cell must have randomly (and without direction or programming) initiated orderly energy usage and replication processes over the years. The chemical activity and physical changes supposedly led to more complex arrangements that then mutated and began to use energy and replicate in new ways. Over time, all living things supposedly arose from those simple and randomly collected natural chemicals, with those evermore complex processes arising randomly and without intelligent design.

This also means that at some late stage of development, rational mental states arose out of utterly non-rational precursors. Rational thinking was and is, for naturalists, simply a complex form of natural chemical interactions. Reason was never intended by the natural, non-intelligent process, for intention is a rational characteristic. So intention or purpose could not exist until reason came into being, but naturalism denies that reason existed in the beginning. Reason evolved only at the end of the process. Prior to the appearance of reason, there could only have been substances characterized by non-reason.

This leads us finally to a very important insight. Reason itself, in the naturalistic world view, is nothing more than the natural and random result of a particular randomly changing original bit of matter. Reason is not really an independent evaluative process that can critique itself. Reason is only what the chemistry allows through self-arrangement and self-organization, and the shaping of logic and rationality and grammatical language is merely a chance result of an undesigned process that has no necessary relation to truth or meaning. All truth could be merely a pragmatically qualified set of ideas. No intrinsic truth would exist, and yet naturalists claim that naturalism itself is true. But how could that claim avoid the inevitable skeptical conclusion. Nothing can be known for sure to be objectively true, for there is no standard other than the chemical pattern one happens to be using at the time. Why should reason be trusted? How could naturalism be known to be true? The answer is: it can't.

Thus naturalism fails to be able to sustain its own truth claim. In fact, all knowledge becomes mere temporary chemical behaviors in the brain, which is a product of meaningless and random chemical processes. You and I are nothing more than two sets of chemical processes temporarily in this present configuration. Nothing can in the traditional sense be true, for there is no objective standard. The human mind is only a temporary effect of a particular set of chemical processes, and thus is not a true observer of fact and reality.

Naturalism claims to be the best and most scientific way to seek truth, but it is an extreme case of circular reasoning that has forgotten its objective roots in the knowledge of the world that stands upon divine revelation ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"). Only in theism do we have a personal, living, intelligent cause. Only theism has a sufficient explanation of life in the world. God is a necessary being, but this is exactly what naturalism denies. Thus reason is lost. Truth is lost. Knowledge is lost. Meaning is lost.

Naturalism dies of its own success.

Recommended Reading

L. Russ Bush, The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in an Evolutionary Age. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003.



As a Christian, I believe that God created the Universe and that the Bible is the most reliable and comprehensive record of human history and the only eyewitness account of the creation events as well as the family history of the Children of Israel and the events leading up to and following important events like the Fall of mankind, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tower of Babel dispersion.   These beliefs are matters of faith bulwarked with evidence.   However, one can falsify Darwinism and support a created Universe with evidence available to everyone today without the necessity of accessing the Bible at all. 

Last summer I presented a pretty comprehensive expose of the truth about life - it cannot come from non-life at all, there are chemical barriers that will not be crossed, cannot be crossed...

A Review: Chemical barriers to life, no natural sources for life and information and powerful evidence for design.

I do recommend reading that post if you want to have a bit of an overview of the insurmountable problems for those who think the Law of Biogenesis can be defied.   It cannot.   For that matter, neither will the Laws of Thermodynamics be broken.   Darwinism runs in the wrong direction because everything is moving from order to disorder, from energy to entropy...only when you bring in directed energy (work) into a system can you overcome this process and what you do will still obey those laws.   

The following is a short dialogue between a commenter who tends to hang around the blog and myself.  I will be speaking in this color.  I'll let Jon Woolf's words be in blue...

"Poor Radar! So many attempts to find one, just one bit of evidence for his magical origin-of-everything-from-nothing that holds up under examination. And not a single example can he find. Not even one. 

(Actually it is the Darwinist who gives nothing credit for making everything by no means for no reason with no power to do so...there is no coherent explanation for the existence of this finite Universe other than a creation by a Transcendent Being/Beings greater than the temporal existence in which we are both sustained and imprisoned.   We have a Bible that has been correct about what it says concerning science when it does address science and thus it is the only actual evidence of our creation extant)

"The magnetic field does not go to zero in any way."

The evidence says it does.  

Jon Woolf thinks that the magnetic field goes to zero if and when the poles reverse!!!  If the magnetic field goes to zero then we inhabitants of Earth will die. The magnetosphere protects us from solar winds and space radiation. If the poles reversed, the field would not go to zero, that is a lack of understanding.

The overall strength of the field is weakening. This tells us it had a beginning and will wind down to an ending. Just like all the rest of the Universe and of course like the Bible declares.  Cue ICR:

Earth's Magnetic Field

The decay of earth's magnetic field has been one of the strongest evidences for the Bible's recent creation doctrine. This concept, developed originally by Dr. Thomas Barnes in 1971, was updated and revised by Dr. Russell Humphreys in 1983. Here are the details.

Earth is surrounded by a powerful magnetic field, generated by well-understood and well-documented electric currents in its metallic core. Incoming solar and stellar radiation continually bombards earth and does great damage to life, causing harmful mutations and likely contributing to the aging and death of living things. Indeed, if these rays were not impeded and filtered by earth's magnetic field, life here would be impossible.
The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth.

Calculating back into the past, the present measurements indicate that 1,400 years ago the field was twice as strong. It continues doubling each 1,400 years back, until about 10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old.

Compare this "clock" with others used to estimate earth's age. This method utilizes a long period of measurement, amounting to over one-tenth of a half-life, whereas radioisotope decay has been accurately measured for only about 100 years, while its half-lives are typically measured in the billions. The short half-life should be favored by uniformitarians for it minimizes the chances that something dramatic has happened to change things, since longer spans are more susceptible to out-of-the-ordinary events. Magnetic field decay also involves a whole earth measurement, and on this large scale it cannot be easily altered or "contaminated," as could any rock selected for radioisotope dating. The young-earth implications are even stronger when the energy of the field is considered rather than its strength, for the energy's half-life decays each 700 years.

Recent creation ideas are necessarily coupled with the global Flood in the days of Noah, during which all of earth's processes and systems were severely disrupted. As ferro-magnetic material rose through the existing magnetic field (when the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken open," Genesis 7:11), temporary reversals in both local and planetary fields would have been induced rapidly, as in an electromagnet. This would have been recorded as "magnetic stripes" flanking mid-ocean spreading centers. Uniformitarians propose a self-generating dynamo (itself a contradiction in terms with inferior theoretical support) of circulating core fluids that slowly decline to zero strength and start up again with reversed orientation. While all processes wane in intensity over time, if a planetary field caused by fluid movements ever went to zero, it could not restart itself.

All things considered, the magnetic field "clock" might be the very best of geochronometers, nearly all of which indicate a maximum age for earth far too short for evolution to occur. The weight of the scientific evidence is on the side of the young earth--and of biblical doctrine.1
Reference
  1.  For more details, see Morris, J. 2007. The Young Earth, revised ed. Green Forest, AR: Master Books; and Snelling, A. A. 2009.Earth's Catastrophic Past. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 509.
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2010. Earth's Magnetic Field. Acts & Facts. 39 (8): 16.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalms 14:1 and 53:1)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.  (Proverbs 9:10) 

Demsbki's Refutation of Hume's Criticism of Paley's Design Argument: As an Argument from Analogy



David Hume argued that the teleological (design) argument for God's existence is either:

1) an argument from analogy; or
2) an inductive generalization based on a sample of size zero

These were Hume’s two main criticisms of the argument from design. The first is that the design argument is based on a weak analogy. This, says William Dembski, “is still the criticism that for many philosophers of religion remains decisive against design.” (Dembski, ID, 271) Dembski sets up the argument from analogy like this:

1. U has property Q.
2. U and V share properties A, B, C and D.
3. Therefore, V also had property Q.

Translating this into Paley’s argument we have:

1. Watches are intelligently designed.
2. Watches and organisms are similar.
3. Therefore, organisms are also intelligently designed.

The main problem with arguments from analogy is that there are also and always disanalogies. “If U and V were identical there would be no question about V having property Q if U has that property.” (Dembski, ID, 272-273) But U and V are not identical. So there are properties that U has but V does not have. And, as the argument shows, U has property Q. Does V have Q, or is this an area of disanalogy? “Without additional information the argument from analogy has no way of deciding this question.” (Ib., 273)

Dembski agrees that “if the design argument is nothing but an argument from analogy, then it is a very weak argument indeed.” (Ib.) But, say Dembski and Elliott Sober, the design argument is “much more” than an argument from analogy. Sober says it is not even an argument from analogy, but is “an inference to the best explanation.” (Ib.) Sober writes:

Hume did not think of the design argument [as an inference to the best explanation]. For him… it [was] an argument from analogy, or an inductive argument. This alternate conception of the argument makes a great deal of difference. Hume’s criticisms are quite powerful if the argument has the character he attributes to it. But if the argument is, as I maintain, an inference to the best explanation, Hume’s criticisms entirely lose their bite. (cited in Ib., 273-274)

Sober holds that Paley’s argument compares two different arguments, one argument about a watch, and a second argument about living things. The statements involved in the watch argument are:

A. The watch is intricate and well suited to the task of timekeeping.
B. The watch is the product of intelligent design. (This is one possibility)
C. The watch is the product of random physical processes. (This is a second possibility.)

Sober says that Paley is arguing that the probability of A given that B is “much bigger” than the probability of A given that C. Paley then reasons that “the same pattern of analysis applies to the following triplet of statements:” (Sober, in Ib., 274)

D. Living things are intricate and well-suited to the task of surviving and reproducing.
E. Living things are the product of intelligent design. (This is one possibility.)
F. Living things are the product of random physical processes. (This is a second possibility.)

Sober writes: “Paley argues that if you agree with him about the watch, you also should agree that” P(D/E) >> P(D/F). (Ib.) Both arguments are inferences to the best explanation. So, Sober thinks Hume’s criticism of the design argument fails.

Dembski notes that this does not lead Sober to accept the design argument, since for Sober, because of Darwin, we have a third possibility G: Living things are the product of variation and selection. Sober admits that “perhaps one day [design] will be formulated in such a way that the auxiliary assumptions it adopts are independently supported. My claim is that no [design theorist] has succeeded in doing this yet.” (Ib., 275) To which Dembski responds that the burden of his writing “has been to show that design remains a live issue and can once again be formulated as the best explanation for the origin and development of life.” (Ib.)

Yet for both Sober and Dembski Hume’s criticism fails because Paley’s design argument is not best construed as neither an argument from analogy nor an inductive argument.
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Real Science of Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism but it does help the cause.   Real science identifies design and irreducible complexity and multi-symbiotic relationships and vast amounts of information, meta-information and all sorts of redundancies and contingencies...life appears to have been engineered brilliantly.   

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/open-letter-to-creationists/

Anonymous said...

Yawn. Is there any part of this that hasn't been debunked at least once on this blog? If there is, could someone point it out to me?

"Imagine that Darwinist scientists are like a guy playing a game of Clue with some friends. He always presumes that Mr. Mustard must be the murderer and so he spends his time trying to connect Mr. Mustard with various weapons in various rooms while everyone else is using their powers of deduction, logic and memory to figure out the actual culprit."

Darwinists presume nothing. The evidence has indicated that evolution took place over time, and it has indicated that it took place due to certain mechanisms. Creationists have no evidence or even scientific hypotheses to the contrary.

On the other hand, it is creationists who presume that Mr. Mustard (a.k.a. God) must be The One That Did It and refuse to consider any alternatives, completely abandoning the area of science just so they can hang on to the least significant aspects of their bible. It's a book of wisdom and spirituality, people, not a science textbook. Don't make fools of yourselves by focusing on the wrong aspect of it.

radar said...

Darwinists presume from the start that whatever they encounter has evolved. Science has had a shot at attempting to explain the Universe and organisms by natural means and failed miserably. It is utterly ridiculous that anyone still tries to beat their heads against the immovable wall of Biogenesis. No life can come from non-life. Seriously, do you know anything at all about microbiology or chemistry? Do you not understand that the components of life cannot form naturally AND that organisms are highly organized with great volumes of specific information?

Go ahead and "debunk" the Law of Biogenesis. The Nobel Prize awaits you.

The evidence indicates that organisms are designed. The evidence indicates that the Solar System and the Earth are young. The evidence indicates that stars and planets cannot form naturally. Do not tell me about what the evidence indicates, I have presented specific posts pointing out that all evidence refutes Darwinism and that it is only the naturalist worldview that keeps Darwinism going on life support. Darwinism is dead. All of the required evidence refutes it.

Anonymous said...

"The evidence indicates that organisms are designed. The evidence indicates that the Solar System and the Earth are young. The evidence indicates that stars and planets cannot form naturally."

OK, here we go again:

Links to peer-reviewed papers in reputable scientific magazines that prove the creationist viewpoint, please.

(conspiracy theories don't count as an answer)

radar said...

Sorry, I have linked and posted on the Solar System already. If you cannot keep up or pay attention then you are falling behind.

The strength of the magnetic field and the Faint Young Sun problem limit the outer edge of the life of Earth at 10 to 20 thousand years old. The Moon regression, which is monitored by NASA, means the Moon has been around less than a billion years. The fact that the planets and moons of the Solar System have magnetic fields, volcanic activity and, in the case of the gas giants give off far more heat than they absorb means they are all quite young.

Also, no secular theory for star and planet formation that does not require dead or dying stars is extant. None that have not been falsified, anyway. The Nebular Hypothesis for planet creation is long debunked.

So I would say it is on you Darwinists to scramble for something to shore up your shattered worldview and better be quick because the proof for a designed cell is getting to be overwhelming!

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, I have linked and posted on the Solar System already. If you cannot keep up or pay attention then you are falling behind."

OK, then instead of typing a whole text link to it again.

Just for clarity: I want peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals that PROVE the creationist viewpoint.

Articles about phenomena that scientists can't (yet) explain DO NOT COUNT as proof.

Let's have it.

radar said...

Haahahahahahaha!!!!

A Darwinist who believes that *poof* is responsible for EVERYTHING wants PROOF that God created?

The Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics and the rules of statistics rule out the random appearance of life AND an upward path for "evolution." So to be a Darwinist you have to ignore well-proved LAWS of science to believe a hypothesis that has no proof at all.

Since we live in a finite Universe and the secular equation for the Big Bang is missing some 95% of the Universe (dark matter and dark energy are the names they give the fudge factors) and the CBR does not fit a big bang anyway, Darwinists have no evidence that is not a fairy tale. The rock records do not resemble what the kids are taught in schools and I know this because I have been on the ground collecting and digging and notating fossil formations since I was a kid.

Real forensic detective work involves ruling out the non-possibilities until you get to one remaining big one. If science did that, Darwinism would have been cast aside long ago.

radar said...

May I go further on? Real detectives actually do rule out in order to get a suspect list by a methodology. The standard detective list is MOM:

Means
Opportunity
Motive

You can swap the two M's if you like. Anyway, everyone who might have the means, opportunity and motive is on the initial suspect list.


Then people who could not have been at the scene of the crime are set aside. If they had no opportunity then they could not have done it.

Those who have motive are of course looked at carefully and even if they do not have means and opportunity their connections are carefully studied to see if they paid someone else to do the imaginary crime we are discussing.

Means is important. If a huge strong guy is beaten to death by fists, a five-foot woman is likely going to be ruled out because she is not big and strong enough.

When you rule out all who do not fit the MOM rules then you wind up with a list of suspects that you concentrate your efforts to eliminate or accuse.

God has MOM to create the Universe. In fact naturalism cannot identify means or opportunity or motive by which the Universe created itself or could have randomly happened. In the real world, forensic sciences would have abandoned naturalism long ago. It persists for metaphysical reasons only.

Anonymous said...

That's a lot of words Radar, but no link to peer-reviewed creationist articles.

Nevermind: we know there aren't any. That's why all your words and copy-pasted articles don't impress much.

radar said...

"That's a lot of words Radar, but no link to peer-reviewed creationist articles.

Nevermind: we know there aren't any. That's why all your words and copy-pasted articles don't impress much."


Obviously you do not check out the extensive references lists that I post with most articles. Over the years (since 2004) I have listed thousands of references to peer-reviewed articles, books, publications, magazines, biographies and etc. So you are lying or lazy, one. Which is it?

" said...

Again, a lot of words... but no link to peer-reviewed creationist articles.

Radar, with all those (alleged) thousands of references to peer-reviewed articles etc., could you post a single link to an article that features a falsifiable, verifiable claim that would be undeniably true if the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago by a supernatural being and yet would be undeniably false if the world came into being billions of years ago and life evolved over a long time... and that claim is then actually confirmed?

One single link.

A single article that does this.

Before you go calling others lying or lazy, you should be able to do this.

Because if you can't, then the above poster is neither lying or lazy... but actually 100% correct.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Previous comment by me.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Haahahahahahaha!!!!

A Darwinist who believes that *poof* is responsible for EVERYTHING wants PROOF that God created?"

You've got your worldviews mixed up again. It's creationists who believe that *poof* is responsible for EVERYTHING. Look it up, it's the first chapter in your magic book.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Darwinists presume from the start that whatever they encounter has evolved."

Not everything. Just the species of life we encounter.

"Science has had a shot at attempting to explain the Universe and organisms by natural means and failed miserably."

Not really. It explains it reasonably well as far as is possible under the constraints of methodological naturalism, i.e. based on evidence and deduction. To explain it further, as you well know, requires the ad hoc addition of magic in various forms. See creationism.

"It is utterly ridiculous that anyone still tries to beat their heads against the immovable wall of Biogenesis."

And who do you think is doing this exactly?

"No life can come from non-life. Seriously, do you know anything at all about microbiology or chemistry? Do you not understand that the components of life cannot form naturally AND that organisms are highly organized with great volumes of specific information?"

Are you claiming that self-replicating polymers can't form naturally? Are you claiming that reproduction with variation can't get started naturally? On what basis?

"Go ahead and "debunk" the Law of Biogenesis. The Nobel Prize awaits you."

You're not paying attention. There's no need to debunk the Law of Biogenesis. It's correct, but only as far as it goes. It's irrelevant once you get to abiogenesis by natural means at the molecular level, and it certainly has nothing to do with evolution.

"The evidence indicates that organisms are designed."

No, speculation and the argument from incredulity indicates that organisms are designed. There is no evidence that suggests such a thing.

"The evidence indicates that the Solar System and the Earth are young."

IIRC, that was debunked in the comment section of your last post.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"The evidence indicates that stars and planets cannot form naturally."

Which evidence would that be?

"Do not tell me about what the evidence indicates,"

If you'll return the favor, then gladly.

"I have presented specific posts pointing out that all evidence refutes Darwinism and that it is only the naturalist worldview that keeps Darwinism going on life support. Darwinism is dead. All of the required evidence refutes it."

All of which was debunked repeatedly on your very own blog, and time and time again you've had to retreat, run off to other topics, only to spread the same lies months or years later.

Tell us, how can YECs explain the actual existing data in light of their worldview? How can they line up the data from the different dating methods and line them up against each other in a coherent and plausible way? How can YECs address the falsification of their very worldview by C-14 dating?

This is the failure of YEC, and these are just some of the many points you have to keep skipping over and run away from.

No doubt you'll claim that you've already answered these questions, but you've presented that particular lie so many times that it's become an especially weak punchline.

If you really think that you've answered these questions, then champion your belief and post a specific link to the post where you think you've answered these questions.

radar said...

HLH actually thinks he has debunked anything???

No, so-called chemical evolution is dead in the water. Completely. You are kidding yourselves. Do you really believe in that? I made sure to present step-by-step chemical/molecular problems with the raw materials of life ever being able to form naturally and of course they cannot. But even if they could how do they arrange themselves into specific patterns and produce ATP and find a cell to go to work and and so on? Chemical evolution is nothing more than "the check is in the mail" while desperate Darwinists keep looking for some method to beat various insurmountable problems.

As to radiometric dating, I have posted enough to demonstrate that all layers of rock contain items that can be dated and all still have C-14 which means they must be less than 100,000 years old. You use "contamination" as a crutch but Ian Juby's very comprehensive answer to that killed off that false claim. Carbon-14 dating actually helps Creationists not Darwnists.

So Darwinists try to use substances with huge half-lives and short-term monitoring to try to give long ages. But the magnetic field of the Earth has been measured since the 1500's and has been measured precisely since the early 19th Century and it is losing power and we can, with such a long time of readings, show that there could not have been an Earth even 25,000 years ago.

The Moon recession rate falsifies long ages. The Moon still being active geologically falsifies long ages. The moon Io falsifies long ages. The life cycle of comets falsifies long ages. The heat generation of the gas giants falsifies long ages. The presence of helium atoms in granitic zircons falsifies long ages. The human population growth curve falsifies long ages. My fingers are going to get tired of that phrase but you get the idea.

Every single main assertion of Charles Darwin that involves a forward-moving process of evolution has been falsified. I do doubt that Darwin would have presented his claims if he knew what we know now about organisms. He at least wanted to use actual evidence and it was not his fault Lyell was a liar. It was not Darwin's fault that Thomas Huxley and Haeckel were deliberately presenting frauds to the world to support Darwinism. It was not really Darwin's fault that people bought into Malthusian concepts or that his cousin (Galton) invented Eugenics, which has led to the murder of so many babies that Hitler's slaughter of Jews, dissidents, handicapped and disfigured people pales in comparison.

You actually have evidence today that should make you abandon evolution of both organisms and the Universe. You choose to ignore it. That is on you.

Anonymous said...

Much talking, but still no peer-reviewed article in a reputable scientific magazine that provides falsifiable and verifiable evidence FOR Young Earth Creationism.

That's the nice thing when you're an 'evolutionist': you know you have tens of thousands of hard working scientists on your side who do actual science instead of wasting their time on propaganda and fear tactics. They don't have to.

One link, Radar. One peer-reviewed article.

Anonymous said...

"You actually have evidence today that should make you abandon evolution of both organisms and the Universe. You choose to ignore it. That is on you."

No, you're just not fooling anyone.

radar said...

By the way, the posts I have made since 2004 have references and attributed quotes and charts and etc. I have covered all aspects in general of the entire evolution versus creation arguments. I have in my blog posts exposed every Darwinist myth more than once. Also as time goes by I have used lots of material from secular sources and not just creationist or ID sites. But these days the majority of creationist and ID scientists seem to have once been evolution-believers who changed their minds because of the evidence.

DNA alone should convince you. The lifecycle of the Monarch Butterfly should convince you. The hard barriers of chemistry which keep the raw materials of life from forming naturally should convince you. Real science cannot support Darwinism.

But for those who read the comments? I'm spending most of my blogging efforts putting the articles and the references in the actual posts. These Darwinists who ask for links in the comments threads just want to get me off of my game and have me waste time. I will continue to post articles and present references and links within my blog posts.

I let guys like HLH say what they like if they keep the language G rated. I will give them credit for doing that. But I will not lose sight of my main purpose, which is to present the evidence in the blog posts.

radar said...

"One link, Radar. One peer-reviewed article."

Read the blog posts. Check the links. That is your job. I have already provided the evidence. One of these days you guys will actually look into the links on the blog posts and quit asking for the same stuff over again. I put my links in my articles and that is where they will remain. End of story. Even a caveman could do it.

Anonymous said...

Concession accepted. End of story indeed.

radar said...

Good grief! The arrogance and ignorance of Darwinists! For the sake of those who might be fooled by their intransigence, I will give you ONE link to a peer-reviewed article on the Earth's Magnetic Field.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/47/47_3/CRSQ%20Winter%202011%20Humphreys.pdf

Now go fish...

Jon Woolf said...

Sorry, Radar, but creationist drivel doesn't qualify. Creationists lie whenever it suits their purpose. As demonstrated by the fact that you're still peddling the "receding moon" lie, previously debunked here multiple times.

"I have covered all aspects in general of the entire evolution versus creation arguments."

What you've done is repeat creationist propaganda. It has been left to your commenters to actually discuss the science involved -- something that they do quite well.

"DNA alone should convince you. The lifecycle of the Monarch Butterfly should convince you. The hard barriers of chemistry which keep the raw materials of life from forming naturally should convince you."

These are allegations, not evidence. The evidence says that your creationism is wrong. YEC does not and cannot explain what we see; therefore, it fails as science.

Anonymous said...

"Read the blog posts. Check the links. That is your job."

So that's a no then? Out of all these supposed thousands of references to peer-reviewed articles, you can't think of one - NOT ONE - single link to an article that features a falsifiable, verifiable claim that would be undeniably true if the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago by a supernatural being and yet would be undeniably false if the world came into being billions of years ago and life evolved over a long time... and that claim is then actually confirmed?

You're coming up blank?

Seriously?

You're conceding the issue?

You don't have a single one?!

So all these thousands of references and so on, they're all essentially worthless when it comes to providing scientific support for YEC, is that it?

Because - make no mistake about it - that is exactly what you are saying when you fail to come up with a single link that manages to do that. When you hide behind vague accusations and unfounded allegations.

Surely there must be a single solitary link that can get you out of this bind.

Anonymous said...

"Carbon-14 dating actually helps Creationists not Darwnists."

How so? The dating methods (and mutual calibrations of each other), including C-14 dating, all support an old-Earth scenario, whether it's creationist or "Darwinist", i.e. actual science.

C-14 dating (as well as other dating methods) consistently indicate an age of the Earth that is much older than 6,000 years, and so YEC is falsified. That's the weird thing, that you somehow think that if it's 100,000 years or 50,000 years, that that automatically means that you're right with your "no older than 6,000 years" hypothesis. Simple logic, Radar: you're wrong. 50,000 years means a maximum age of 6,000 years is FALSIFIED.

Sure, you've done some muttering about "re-calibrating" the data, but how is that anything other than fudging the data after the fact to get what you want? That may get you through an assignment in science class, but in actual science it doesn't count.

And you still haven't linked to an article (or described it yourself, you scientific expert you) about how that calibration might work and make the data line up somehow. It just plain doesn't add up.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I will give you ONE link to a peer-reviewed article on the Earth's Magnetic Field.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/47/47_3/CRSQ%20Winter%202011%20Humphreys.pdf"

Just out of curiosity - what makes you think this is a peer-reviewed article?

radar said...

It is a peer-reviewed article because it was reviewed by peers and then published in that year's journal, of course.

Peer review was once a matter of a bunch of scientists checking out the works of others. Then naturalists took over and kept the creationists out. Then creationists started their own peer groups and also a third sector began which we call the ID proponents. They do not concern themselves with the identity of a designer but simply they have discerned design and use operational science to both study this and demonstrate it.

So we have many different segments of the scientific community. We have a set of theistic evolutionists. We have old earth creationists. Science has split into all sorts of different factions over the matter of origins whereas, before Darwin and even up to the beginning of the 20th Century God was a given and science just went from a starting point of a created Universe with created materials and laws and that was a very successful beginning assumption.

The beginning assumption that there is no God and that all things have natural explanations is a massive failure. It has hindered science and had a negative impact on society. I work to correct this mistake via this blog. The world is a better place without Darwinism and all the evils that it brings - no moral code, no purpose to life, no responsibility to others or to God and complete self-reliance and self-centeredness. Bogus!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It is a peer-reviewed article because it was reviewed by peers and then published in that year's journal, of course."

Where does it say it was reviewed by peers? And who are the peers?

"Peer review was once a matter of a bunch of scientists checking out the works of others."

Still is actually.

"Science has split into all sorts of different factions over the matter of origins whereas, before Darwin and even up to the beginning of the 20th Century God was a given and science just went from a starting point of a created Universe with created materials and laws and that was a very successful beginning assumption."

What scientific discovery has the assumption of a creator god ever yielded that wasn't already covered by mere methodological naturalism?

"The beginning assumption that there is no God and that all things have natural explanations is a massive failure."

The assumption that all things have natural explanations has been a resounding success without which we'd not only not be able to converse on this Internet-thingy but I suspect you wouldn't even be alive at this point, given your extensive medical problems.

The assumption that there is a God may have given some scientists spiritual and philosophical satisfaction, but it has nothing to do with the nature and success of their work.

"It has hindered science"

Name one instance.

"and had a negative impact on society. I work to correct this mistake via this blog. The world is a better place without Darwinism and all the evils that it brings - no moral code, no purpose to life, no responsibility to others or to God and complete self-reliance and self-centeredness. Bogus!"

Whatever.