Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

In part one of this series, the philosophy of science along with defining information, and its use.  Also, the difference between Christians getting their philosophy of life from the Bible and evolutionists who get their philosophy of life from the data. Along with merging historical science with operational science which is not logical! And lastly, part one covered the laws of thermodynamics.

Philosopher of science, David Hull once said…

“Science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable, entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is making inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory.”

In part two, we are going to go more in-depth on using science to detect intelligence as the source of the creation and the mindless process known as evolution. This is not a new revelation because even secular researchers know that science has revealed nature as being designed but go out of their way trying to disprove it like biologist Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist who for years has been in denial about the existence of God.

In the debate on whether or not nature was designed, there is a fallacy which always comes up and is often times used…In a recent conference on human evolution,  Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer and Alan Mann from Princeton express their worldview (here and here) by claiming the human body is a product of poor design, thus in their minds evolution is doing it all!

“Bad backs, dangerous childbirths, sore feet and wisdom teeth pains are among the many ailments humans face from evolution, researchers say.

“In an evolutionary sense, humans are by far the most successful primates on the planet, with a world population close to 7 billion. Humanity owes this success to a number of well-known adaptations, such as large, complex brains and walking upright on two feet. However, there are downsides to these advances as well.”

Latimer explains his argument against intelligent design while favoring evolution…

“If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved,” Latimer said. “Unfortunately, we can’t go back to walking on four feet. We’ve undergone too much evolutionary change for that—and it is not the answer to our problems.”

Firstly, Latimer uses petty arguments in his worldview when defending evolution such as “sore feet” which can be caused by a variety of things rather than a poor design. Secondly, his argument consists of the claim that if a human designer (rather than just implying God) created all things, the creation would be perfectly designed in all aspects so therefore it is implied by Latimer that neither man nor God could have been the creator.  However, this is not the case and since he used human engineering as an example, this will be addressed. Human engineers do not create perfect machinery, nor  perfect building structures, nor anything else that would be considered perfect for that matter in the realm of engineering!

Rather such things like the machinery which was built by human intelligence eventually wears out over time (causing problems with normal functions) thus, there is a need for a replacement. And certainly these human-made machines are far from being a perfect design otherwise, there would be no need for advancements which are better than previous built designs! Also, engineers do not create other things perfect like cars either. As science progresses, these designs of cars also improve over time! Since human engineering has flaws with room for improvements, it doesn’t mean the machinery itself was not intelligently designed as Latimer suggests!  And lastly, in the modern intelligent design movement, they do not advocate perfect designs as proof neither does creationism.

Here is what their position is…

“It may well be that the designer chose to create an “optimum design” or a “robust and adaptable design” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.”

What the modern intelligent design movement believes to be proof…

“We infer design when we see that parts appear to be arranged for a purpose. The more parts that are arranged, and the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design.”

So Latimer’s argument as well as Alan’s falls flat with the facts which reminds me of Shakespeare who once said, “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faulty, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action like an angel, in apprehension…how like a god.”

Atheist Richard Dawkins in his book, The Blind Watchmaker published in 1996…

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.”

Without trying to deny design in nature while making a case for evolutionary causes about the human body, secular scientists as well as other scientists, marvel on how well the human body operates! Calling it “amazing” or “incredible.”

In 1980, Michael Denton, a molecular biologist dropped a bombshell on the scientific community when he wrote his controversial book called “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis” where he says that new discoveries in biology are opening up new levels of detail concerning the operation of the human body and are revealing more precise functioning than ever imagined. Much like we see today! Dr. Charles Thaxton in the 1990s argued for intelligent design of the human body. His argument was called the principle of uniform experience.

Years later in 2008, “The Cells Design” by Fazale Rana was published. Although the book claims to be a breakthrough for the case of design, it uses the same principle of uniform experience. The research in the book is quite remarkable and very educational along with excellent analysis which is well worth the read!

To give an idea on what this principle of uniform experience is about, one needs to look at the formation of a beautiful tapestry. First, one has to have a blueprint (information) for the tapestry. Second, one needs to decide which colors will be used and what pattern the colors will be used in. Third, one must pick out the type of fabric that will be used. This design can only be accomplished through intelligence, rather than randomly picked colors and fabrics, for they must coordinate and compliment each other. A mindless process cannot tell one color from the next or if the colors coordinate and compliment each other neither can it direct nature to come up with certain colors in order to accomplish it.

It is similar with the human body, which requires precise movement, coordination, and communication among our body’s cells!  The human body is mostly made up with an estimate of 100 trillion cells! Every single cell, every fiber is loaded with activity! The human body is a very busy place, even when your sleeping as it always keeps building, renovating, reproducing, and growing. It converts one energy source into another while sending and receiving messages in a particular language that it can understand. It fights off intruders, and performs some of the most amazing balance acts known to man!

The human body is a highly advanced design, which requires various layers of organization to keep things running smoothly. Each cell is an irreducibly complex system where it requires several interacting components to be present and functioning at the same time. The removal of one or more of the components in a human cell causing the whole system to malfunction and die. In other words this is no room for the halfway point (or anything else in-between) concerning biology! Many cellular processes will not work unless every component is present and functioning.

Like every system in the universe, but unlike evolution, the human body winds down which is why we have upper age limits. Cells eventually wear out and die. The cells in our body will multiply, repair itself, but it will not keep on renewing our bodies forever! Typos in our DNA code known as mutations are killing us! Mutations are also linked to over 1,000 human diseases!

We obtain three mutations per cell division. An average cell can divide around 90 times which would give us an enormous about of mutations over time. Michael Lynch, a population geneticist who life’s work was measuring this stuff, in his paper published in PNAS 107:961-968, says that by the time we reach the age of 15, we obtain on average 6,000 mutations per cell. By the time we reach 60 years old, we obtain 40,000 mutations with our skin cells alone! Mutations Michael Lynch says, is the primary cause of aging and death.

The human body is one of the most amazing complex type of machinery known to man. Each part of the body has its own job,. The parts work together to keep the body alive much like the parts on a car which work together to keep it going! We have just scratched the surface on this subject, there is more amazing engineering that will be addressed.

To Be Continued…

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

  1. Michael: “…because even secular researchers know that science has revealed nature as being designed …”

    No they don’t. Are you now resorting to plain lying ??

  2. In part one of this series, the philosophy of science along with defining information, and its use. [sic] Also, the difference between Christians getting their philosophy of life from the Bible and evolutionists who get their philosophy of life from the data. Along with merging historical science with operational science which is not logical! And lastly, part one covered the laws of thermodynamics.

    Four opening sentences. The first is meaningless nonsense. The second and third are seriously flawed premises. The fourth refers to a stupidly false application of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Not a good start for building an argument.

    .

    What the modern intelligent design movement believes to be proof…

    “We infer design when we see that parts appear to be arranged for a purpose. The more parts that are arranged, and the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design.”

    This is not an “inference”. It is an “analogy,” an analogy to certain aspects of human designed artifacts.[1] Analogies may sometimes suggest promising approaches to investigate, but they themselves have no evidentiary value;[2] they must be demonstrated by physical evidence.

    There is no evidence that natural processes cannot arrange parts for a purpose. In fact, von Neumann showed mathematically that they can, and industrial genetic algorithms do it every day. The theory of complex systems bears this out, with its concepts of downward causation and emergent properties.

    Why do increased numbers of parts and intricate interaction demonstrate design? This is an unsupported assumption. For example, it is hard to find anything with more highly interacting parts than the global weather system. Does Michael really contend that global weather is a product of design? In biological organisms, the interactions point more strongly to a gradual cobble job of available chemicals and reactions than to any purposeful design.

    Michael’s premises for his arguments are deeply flawed, and his analogies are mere unsupported assumptions. Case not proven.

    ====================

    [1] Meanwhile other aspects of human artifacts differ wildly from biological organisms. Can you imagine every toaster in the world carrying around its own apparatus for reproducing itself? Can you imagine Ford sedans competing among themselves for gasoline, with only the more successful ones surviving?

    [1] Except in theology. But even there, some logical basis for them must be adduced.

  3. In fact, von Neumann showed mathematically that they can

    Source?

    and industrial genetic algorithms do it every day.

    Examples?

  4. Really, are you claiming Dawkins is the only one who believes nature appears designed, but it’s an illusion? I call it denial, here is another, a book called…Seven Clues to the Origin of Life by Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith where Dawkins gets his idea. In the book, on page 58…“Organisms are full of such machinery, and it is a widely held view that this appearance of having been designed is the key feature of living things.”

    Anything with biomimetics is another, all those papers you read or might be reading that likes to give evolution the credit, but the main focus is engineering and engineering isn’t a mindless process! Rather it comes from a mind!

    Can you imagine creation scientists saying, the earth appears to have evolved but it’s only an illusion? You would react, they are in denial! Scientists have used engineering terms and principles to describe nature and you know why? Because they know it’s designed, but deny that reality!

  5. Olorin, what determines the level of design of any object(s) or process(es)? And how would you rebut a creationist claiming that evolution only seems to be true?

  6. here is another, a book called…Seven Clues to the Origin of Life by Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith where Dawkins gets his idea. In the book, on page 58…“Organisms are full of such machinery, and it is a widely held view that this appearance of having been designed is the key feature of living things.”

    I seriously doubt that Dawkins “got his idea” [1] from Cairns-Smith. Seven Clues and Watchmaker were published less than a year apart. Cairns-Smith himself says that this was already a “widely held view.” The concept of evolution as mimicking design was discussed by Darwin. This concept is usually credited to Paley, but Paley acknowledges that his view was also widely held before he wrote his book on natural theology in 1802. The argument from design goes even farther back, to ancient Greece.

    Anything with biomimetics is another, [sic] all those papers you read or might be reading that likes [sic] to give evolution the credit, but the main focus is engineering and engineering isn’t a mindless process!

    Biomimetics offers no evidence of design. Why would a desire to copy something indicate that the thing copied was designed? Some outdoor loudspeakers are designed to mimic the shape and appearance of real rocks. Does that show that the natural rocks were designed? Somehow I doubt it. A few newer medical acoustic imagers use solitons, an idea copied from that type of wave observed in Scotland’s Union Canal. Does that show that solitons were designed? Doubtful.

    Some evolved biologic structures have been copied for man-made artifacts. The reason they had not been previously copied was that humans cannot directly operate on the spatial scales of many of these structures, and/or on their time scales. On the other hand, many purely human-designed objects are not even remotely found in nature, even though, say, aluminum jet aircraft are much superior to the performance and carrying capacity of any birds or insects. Is this not an argument against design?

    Scientists have used engineering terms and principles to describe nature and you know why? Because they know it’s designed, but deny that reality!

    Desperate, Michael, desperate. Scientists use engineering terms to describe nature because these terms have been around for a long time, and there are no convenient corresponding terms that are applicable only to biological systems, or to evolved structures. In addition, scientists and engineers love to anthropomorphize natural phenomena. Chemists will frequently be heard to reamark that two compounds “want” to bond with each other, even though anyone with the slightest knowledge of chemistry would laugh at the idea that the compounds themselves have a will or any emotions.

    Like many creationists, Michael puts a premium on the exact words used to describe phenomena, giving them a gloss not intended by the speaker, or intended to be figurative only. This is laughable also because they go to the opposite extreme when it suits their purpose: they equivocate between two disparate meanings of a word. “Information” is a prime example.

    =======================

    [1] “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (W. W. Norton, 1986), 1.

  7. Once again Olorin, how would you rebut a creationist claiming that evolution only seems to be true?

  8. Once again Olorin, how would you rebut a creationist claiming that evolution only seems to be true?

    A creationist needs to understand—not just to “know” or “hear”—the following:
    [A] Appearances can be deceiving. Ask any optical illusion.
    [B] A system of many interacting parts need not be designed. Ask the global weather system. The concept of an agent-less complex system seems an insurmountable obstacle to creationists, even though they are known—and regularly studied by complex system theories.[1]
    [C] The similarities that create the appearance must be relevant to the underlying issue. A rock is not similar to a chair, as to whether it is designed, just because you can sit on either one.
    [D] Conversely, differences may be more relevant than similarities in respect to the underlying issue. For example, human-designed systems reproduce with a mechanism that is external to the system itself, and is preferably constructed to be as free as possible from errors. On the other hand, each biological organism incorporates the means to reproduce itself, and that means includes a certain amount of variability which can be inherited This is, in fact, the major feature of biological organisms which PERMIT evolution—and which human-designed artifacts lack.[2]
    [E] Designed objects are sometimes mistaken for natural objects, and vice versa. Ask the Melanesian tribesmen who tried to “hatch” bombs dropped from airplanes flying overhead. The tribesmen thought they were “airplane eggs.”[3] Often, this misattribution is springs from cultural bias. For example, few creationists know enough about evolution even to perceive the differences involved. This is why many creationists (such as Abbie Smith or PZ Myers) become atheists when exposed to college-level science courses, especially in geology[4] and biology. Understanding brings doubt, and the doubt overwhelms them into going the whole distance into atheism, rather then retaining any faith at all.
    [F] Creationists need to understand why science limits itself to explanatory closure. And that science is not prepared to answer all questions concerning human existence.

    Creationists need to understand at least the above concepts. Bu few of them will. These concepts seem obvious to scientists, even religious scientists such as Francisco Ayala. But other factors, such as religious faith, conspiracy theories, or cultural biases often dominate logical reasoning for most people..

    ===================

    [1] Sunny Auyang puts it this way in her book, Foundations of Complex System Theories in Economics, Evolutionary Biology, and Statistical Physics (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), p.65—

    Downward causation is often accused of being mystical. It is not if it is clearly articulated. There are two dimensions in the interpretation of downward causation. The first regards the effects of the system on the behaviors of its constituents, the second the source of the system’s causal efficacy. Mysticism results if the causal efficacy is credited to independent sources such as vitalism or psychic energy that are totally detached friom the forces among the constituents and stand above them. Such attribution is not necessary. For us, the system has no independent fund of causal power, although it is described in independent concepts

    [2] I speak only of “human”-designed objects for 2 reasons. First, as noted above creationists are unable to contemplate any kind of natural process that does not require an agent. See footnote 1, supra. Second, we have no experience with how a non-human intelligent agent—such as God—would design anything.

    [3] Likewise, human constructions can be mistaken for divine manifestations. In some Pacific islands even today, “cargo cults” build lighted runways to attract to attract divine airplanes that will bestow treasures on them. Hasn’t worked yet, but they still keep trying.

    [4] For decades, creationist groups sent promising candidates to grad schools in geology, only to have all of them either drop out to preserve their faith, or (more likely) abandon their faith by the time they had finished the program. See Numbers, The Creationists (Harvard U. Press, 2d Ed., 2006), “Flood Geology without Flood Geologists,” pp.301-311.

  9. Appearances can be deceiving. Ask any optical illusion.

    Didn’t know one could communicate directly with optical illusions.

    A system of many interacting parts need not be designed. Ask the global weather system. The concept of an agent-less complex system seems an insurmountable obstacle to creationists, even though they are known—and regularly studied by complex system theories.[1]

    Didn’t know one could also communicate directly with the global weather system. You have not answered how one determines that the global weather is not the result of design. Have another try.

    The similarities that create the appearance must be relevant to the underlying issue. A rock is not similar to a chair, as to whether it is designed, just because you can sit on either one.

    I fail to see how this is applicable to anything.

    Conversely, differences may be more relevant than similarities in respect to the underlying issue…..which human-designed artifacts lack.[2]

    It permits point mutations not accumulated mutations becoming new beneficial functions.

  10. Designed objects are sometimes mistaken for natural objects, and vice versa…..whole distance into atheism, rather then retaining any faith at all.

    Strawman. Melanesian tribesmen aren’t known for having PhDs in science so we can forgive their errors. However, give examples of PhD holders who mistake designed objects for natural objects. Then send us a link to any evolutionist who has 5 PhDs (one for the four natural sciences) and the last in math, since evolution concerns all of these areas.

    Creationists need to understand why science limits itself to explanatory closure. And that science is not prepared to answer all questions concerning human existence.

    Strawman, no creationist would argue with that.

    Creationists need to understand at least the above concepts. Bu few of them will. These concepts seem obvious to scientists, even religious scientists such as Francisco Ayala. But other factors, such as religious faith, conspiracy theories, or cultural biases often dominate logical reasoning for most people.

    Stop bloviating. Answer the question. By what method would you answer a creationist if he asserts that evolution is an illusion. Give the scientific steps, not strawmen and smears.

  11. Stop bloviating. Answer the question.

    I did. You just didn’t like the answer. There’s a big difference between not answering a question and rejecting an answer.

    Let me know how you managed to attain a 100% impenetrability rate for unwelcome ideas. Oh—and how has the government covered up all those UFO landings and alien abductions for so many years?

  12. As stated previously, “Give the scientific steps, not strawmen and smears.” And your UFO is a red herring. You still can’t not commit a logical fallacy per post. Here’s what, let’s start simple. How does one communicate directly with optical illusions and weather systems?

  13. Your questions are quickly devolving into a slough of meaninglessness. I see no point in continuing. I was sorely tempted not to begin.

    How does one communicate with an optical illusion BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA. Was that one prompted by stupidity or perversity?

  14. Seems you are becoming senile. Who stated that creationists should “Ask any optical illusion” and “Ask the global weather system”? That would be you. So were those statements “stupidity or perversity” on your part?

  15. Chazlng reads about “the valley of the shadow of death” in Psalm 23, and complains, “Poppycock and horsefeathers! Death has no shadow! Give me the scientific steps as to how death can block sunlight!”

    The rest of us learned, somewhere in secondary school, or before, about the figure of speech called “personification.” Apparently Chazlng was playing hookey that day.

  16. So now you are putting words into people’s mouth. Always aiming for lower I see.

    Give me the scientific steps as to how death can block sunlight!”

    Non-sequitur.

    So you have finally answered the obvious, took you long enough. On to item #2. Send us a link to any evolutionist who has 5 PhDs (one for the four natural sciences) and the last in math, since evolution concerns all of these areas.

  17. Ah. A long trip, but worth it. A full moon over the ocean. The soft susuration of happy palm trees. And a note our daughter left for my 75th birthday today: “Hau ‘oli la hanau.”

    .

    So you have finally answered the obvious, took you long enough

    If it were so obvious, why could you not answer it yourself? Ponder that.

    So far, Chazlng has asked all the questions, and has provided no answers for anything. Now it’s way past time for my turn. So let’s try a couple of very basic Queries for Qureationists..

    Obviously, animals and plants have changed since the time of the putative creation 600—or was it 6000?—years ago. For, example, broccoli did not exist 2,000 years ago, nor bananas. What caused these changes? Evolution? God? If the latter, how did God accomplish the changes? Poof and you’re done? Jiggered the genome? Provide eyewitness accounts.

    Creationists invoke the second law of thermodynamics to insist that an only an intelligence can decrease entropy. Please point out in the second law the exception for intelligence. Keep in mind Landauer’s Principle, recently confirmed by experiment, that intelligence cannot violate the second law to decrease overall entropy. Are we back to just plain MAGIC?

    Provide a link to any creationist who has 5 PhDs in thaumaturgy, demonology, misinformatics, prevaricationomics, and legislative lobbying studies, since creationism concerns all of these areas (I know. Only the graduate school of the Institute for Creation Research grants mail-order degrees in those fields. But that school is accredited only in Romania.)

    Consider the following sequence: 8, 5, 4, 9, 1, 7, 6, 3, 2, 0. Is it random or intelligently designed? How can you tell? Show your work.

  18. If it were so obvious, why could you not answer it yourself? Ponder that.

    I could, I wanted you to answer it (one would thought that would be obvious, ah well) and you did answer by trying to deflect. If it were obvious to you (personification that is), then why did you reply “How does one communicate with an optical illusion BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA. Was that one prompted by stupidity or perversity?” To me this shows that you are going senile since you did not claim ‘personification’ then.

    So far, Chazlng has asked all the questions, and has provided no answers for anything.

    Linguistic dancing. I have asked many questions but have made few claims. You have made many claims for which I have replied with questions for YOU to prove or show how you reached said conclusions. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts, not me. However, you have either not answered or focused (as you have always done) on one minor point (of mine) which you skew or blow out of proportion, give some retort to and then scoff.

  19. Now it’s way past time for my turn. So let’s try a couple of very basic Queries for Qureationists..

    Excellent, I’ll do the Olorin linguistic dance. First step: ignore everything and focus on something in the last few sentences. So I will focus on the following:

    Consider the following sequence: 8, 5, 4, 9, 1, 7, 6, 3, 2, 0. Is it random or intelligently designed? How can you tell? Show your work.

    Second step: reply but not actually answer the question. Be snarky too.

    So here goes: It is not intelligently designed because a possibly senile guy named Olorin typed it.

    There, the dance is finished. I’ll do one better though. I’ll actually answer your question: The sequence is intelligently designed iff it can be interpreted as information bearing (not random noise) by a receiver tuned (though not necessarily specifically tuned) to the communication intricacies of the sender of the information stream of “8, 5, 4, 9, 1, 7, 6, 3, 2, 0” –> and even this is simplistic because there’s error checking, information formatting and intent.

    I’m not surprised that you would ask something so stupid [1] (in engineering) given that you can’t even get your cosmology right. So again and keeping this super simple, give 2 examples of PhD holders who mistook designed objects for natural objects. I’ll bet, you’re going to do the Olorin linguistic dance [2] but go ahead, I’ll play with you.

    [1] Another term is unwarranted since you are a qualified engineer so that a reductionist question of this sort is a shame to engineering and science as a whole.
    [2] Patent pending?

  20. Truly, debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. The creationist pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies off squawking victory.

    Doei.

  21. If it were so obvious, why could you not answer it yourself? Ponder that.

    I could, I wanted you to answer it (one would thought that would be obvious, ah well) and you did answer by trying to deflect..

    A desperate try, but no cumquat. Once again, BWAHAHAHAHAJAAAAAAAAA (The delay in explaining was caused by an acute medical problem . Sorry.)

    Gentle readers, peruse the last few comments Could any educated person have not noticed that what I said was a figure of speech? Chazlng didn’t even know what a personification is. ( By the way, the “happy palm trees” above is also a personification.)

    A transparent fabrication. Of course, Chazlng is a creationist, so we should expect that.

  22. I’m prophetic it seems: “I’ll bet, you’re going to do the Olorin linguistic dance.” As I said before, careful you don’t break a hip.

    Truly, debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. The creationist pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies off squawking victory.

    If I recall correctly, that a repeated assertion. Are things so bad you need to copy and paste? Now even if you had a medical problem (besides senility), your first reply would not have been to “BWAHAHAHAHAJAAAAAAAAA.” Your constant harping on personification is testament to the hollowness of your typical answers as you focus on some minor point.

    I also know about communications systems which apparently you do not. I wanted a full scientific rebuttal to your not intelligently designed string of numbers and now I am predictably disappointed. Serves me right.

  23. Why are you appealing to the gentle readers? Are you here to help them see the light of evolution? Would it not be easier for them to read a book? Or are you here to proselytize? Isn’t that already paid for in schools financed partially through taxing creationists?

    A transparent fabrication. Of course, Chazlng is a creationist, so we should expect that.

    So transparent it had to be called out? Are you saying that the gentle readers are too simplistic to see a “transparent fabrication”? Gentle readers, you have been insulted! But given your record, “we should expect that.” And how do you know I’m a creationist? Have I stated that anywhere? I could be an atheistic intelligent design advocate like Berlinski (I’m not though) or a computer program which is constantly evolving through accumulated point mutations pruned by natural selection and other environmental pressures designed to fool senile evolutionists that they’re talking to a creationist. How do you know? Lay out your epistemology for the gentle readers.

    Why do you insist on smearing people by association? Can you not rebut an individual argument without resorting to ad hominem? You are so predictable Olorin. Anyways, once again, again: “give 2 examples of PhD holders who mistook designed objects for natural objects” Your gentle readers await.

  24. Why are you appealing to the gentle readers? Are you here to help them see the light of evolution?

    That was the whole point of your original question. Can you not remember all the way back to your comment on February 22, 2013 at 8:55 am? Yes, they will have to read a book or two. My comments were designed to help them read books on evolution from a scientific viewpoint, rather than religious.

    Isn’t that already paid for in schools financed partially through taxing creationists?

    There are many things that tax creationists. A few of them are contained in my comment of February 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    A transparent fabrication.

    Are you saying that the gentle readers are too simplistic to see a “transparent fabrication”?

    That comment was addressed to you, Murgatroyd. L. Chazlng, and not to any readers. That seemed obvious as well.

    And how do you know I’m a creationist? Have I stated that anywhere?

    Yes, many times in your muddy tracks through this blog. You have not explicitly said that you are a religious creationist, but the inference from the many Bible quotations and appeals to religion pass the smell test easily. (Besides, many computer programmers are hooked on design, because the subject of their work is by definition all designed. This makes them prone to infection by pareidolia.)

    Anyways, once again, again: “give 2 examples of PhD holders who mistook designed objects for natural objects” Your gentle readers await.

    No they don’t. You asked that for your own benefit only. But here goes. There are several PhDs in our small townhouse development. A while back we got new kitchen countertops. One of the (PhD) neighbors mistook the man-made composite material for natural granite. Last fall, one of the new (PhD) neighbors came over for a visit, and sat on my Rockustic outdoor loudspeaker near the patio. She mistook it for a natural rock, you see, and damaged it.

    .

    Now back to my questions for you. Still waiting.

    By the way, your bogus answer to the last question on February 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm would completely banish all random sequences whatever. The recipient could tune a receiver to ANY incoming sequence, which would then pass the test for a designed sequence. Dembski tried this with his soi-disant “explanatory filter.” The response from information scientists was, quite properly, BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.

    Well, that’s it. I’m not wasting any more of an afternoon on the beach here. Watching for whale spouts is much more interesting. And productive.

  25. My comments were designed to help them read books on evolution from a scientific viewpoint, rather than religious.

    Given how you have characterized creationists, would they not be too stupid to understand any form of science?

    That comment was addressed to you, Murgatroyd. L. Chazlng, and not to any readers. That seemed obvious as well.

    I would say you are lying since you stated: “Of course, Chazlng is a creationist, so we should expect that.” That “we” would be your gentle readers, you know the ones too stupid to spot a transparent fabrication.

    Yes, many times in your muddy tracks through this blog. You have not explicitly said that you are a religious creationist, but the inference from the many Bible quotations and appeals to religion pass the smell test easily. (Besides, many computer programmers are hooked on design, because the subject of their work is by definition all designed. This makes them prone to infection by pareidolia.)

    Your ability to read and comprehend seems to be going downhill: Thus here it is again: “I could be an atheistic intelligent design advocate like Berlinski (I’m not though) or a computer program which is constantly evolving through accumulated point mutations pruned by natural selection and other environmental pressures designed to fool senile evolutionists that they’re talking to a creationist. How do you know? Lay out your epistemology for the gentle readers.” If that’s your epistemology, it’s poor. As for pareidolia, that would be more applicable to an evolutionist who sees point mutations and then dreams that it can create new functions and organisms all by itself despite experimental evidence in its favour. To plagiarize you: BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.

    No they don’t. You asked that for your own benefit only. But here goes. There are several PhDs in our small townhouse development. A while back we got new kitchen countertops. One of the (PhD) neighbors mistook the man-made composite material for natural granite. Last fall, one of the new (PhD) neighbors came over for a visit, and sat on my Rockustic outdoor loudspeaker near the patio. She mistook it for a natural rock, you see, and damaged it.

    Finally, a direct answer, must be painful for you. Let’s hope this continues. Was any of your example PhDers geologists? And if there are PhDs who mistake designed objects for natural objects, how do you know this is also not the case for evolutionists? Lay out your epistemology for the gentle readers.

    Now back to my questions for you. Still waiting.

    Which one would that be?

  26. By the way, your bogus answer to the last question on February 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm would completely banish all random sequences whatever. The recipient could tune a receiver to ANY incoming sequence, which would then pass the test for a designed sequence. Dembski tried this with his soi-disant “explanatory filter.” The response from information scientists was, quite properly, BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.

    And there you go into senile mode again with an appeal to authority fallacy. You’re consistent at least. Numbers are axiomatical thus they are by nature designed. Any random sequence can have information, the issue is the degree of information and INTENT [you know that thing that only comes from a mind]. You are quite seriously a disgrace to engineering but that works out well in illustrating the mental deficiencies of some Internet evolutionists. Also, Dembski (and many in the ID camp) believes that evolution occurred and is thus on your team (oh look! another case of your mental deficiency).

    Well, that’s it. I’m not wasting any more of an afternoon on the beach here. Watching for whale spouts is much more interesting. And productive.

    Evolutionarily speaking, if you are not spreading your genes, you are not being productive. The whales are probably more productive than you (oh look again! yet another case of your mental deficiency. You’re on a roll!). Score one for the whales!

    Now baby steps: Which ONE creationist PhD mistook a natural object for a created object? Give their name, the actual object, what the object was mistaken for and their PhD area. If you have a link post it for your gentle (but stupid) readers.

  27. The neighbors threw a pupu party for my birthday. A good time was had by all, despite the ferocious trades, which threatened to sweep us all into the sea. No kayaks were brave enough to venture forth; high-surf warnings were being broadcast all day.

    .

    Which ONE creationist PhD mistook a natural object for a created object? Give their name, the actual object, what the object was mistaken for and their PhD area. If you have a link post it for your gentle (but stupid) readers.

    Jonathan Wells is a creationist with a PhD religious studies (Yale, 1986) and a PhD in
    molecular and cell biology (Berkeley, 1994). He mistook natural centrioles for designed turbines, in Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?” Rivista di Biologica 98:71-96 (2005). Wells’ mistake was discussed by Ian Musgrave in 2006.

    .

    Now back to my questions for you. Still waiting.

    Which one would that be?

    Ah. Memory problems again. The questions in the last 4 grafs of my comment on February 27, 2013 at 9:22 pm.

    Do you plan a serious answer to the 4th question, or do you wish to be graded on your ridiculous response on February 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm?

  28. Time to move on, Michael. Almost two weeks of baiting Chazlng should be enough.

    You might try “Complex Brain Wiring Unveiled in New Images”, where David Coppedge makes yet another feeble attempt to infer design from complexity.

    Or ENV’s “In a Tadpole’s Eye: Another Case of Darwinism’s Plasticity Problem” where mathematician David Klinghoffer displays his ignorance of developmental biology.

    Or another feckless expedition through the alimentary canal with gun and camera, in “The appendix: useless vestige or valuable evolutionary innovation?”

  29. Ah. Memory problems again. The questions in the last 4 grafs of my comment on February 27, 2013 at 9:22 pm.

    Hardly, I need clarification because I already stated that I was doing just like you and only answering one question irrespective of how many were in a post. I asked 6 questions in the last 2 posts and you answered 1. Answer the other 5 and then I might consider showing you (and your gentle readers) how fallacious your questions are.

    Do you plan a serious answer to the 4th question, or do you wish to be graded on your ridiculous response on February 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm?

    Grade me teacher.

  30. Jonathan Wells is a creationist with a PhD religious studies (Yale, 1986) and a PhD in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley, 1994). He mistook natural centrioles for designed turbines, in Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?” Rivista di Biologica 98:71-96 (2005). Wells’ mistake was discussed by Ian Musgrave in 2006.

    Wells does not believe in common descent but does think the earth may be 4.55 billion years old. So I’ll call him a provisional creationist. Well’s article is available here: http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_centrioles_0406.pdf

    I suspect that you did not read it for he states, p. 75:

    Various authors, starting with de Harven [1968], have noted that the triplet microtubules have a turbine-like disposition. What if centrioles really are tiny turbines? This is much easier to conceive if we adopt a holistic rather than reductionistic approach, and if we regard centrioles as designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution (Wells[2004]).

    It should be clear to those who are not brain dead what he is talking about. He did not mistake a centriole for a power turbine. He also describes his work as a hypothesis which negates any accusation that he mistook a natural objected for a created object. After 3 degrees, is this the extent of your reasoning ability?

    Come on now, try again. Ask your PhD friends to help you.

  31. He did not mistake a centriole for a power turbine.

    Did you even read what you wrote? What if centrioles “REALLY ARE” tiny turbines. Turbines that produce the polar ejection force.

    His “hypothesis” is a rhetorical question; he adopts the hypothesis in the subsequent sentences, and offers justification for adopting it. If Wells didn’t mean that centrioles were designed turbines, then he certainly fooled the Disco Tute, which also adopted it as true. And William Dembski adopted it in Uncommon Descent.

    Until, that is, real scientists showed in 2006 that the creationists’ vaunted poster child was 100% horse puckey, with no preservatives added. Subsequently, the Dishonesty Institute dropped the claim, and Well’s paper magically evaporated from their list of peer-reviewed publications supporting creation. It was “disappeared,” as they used to say in the Soviet Union.

    So no help needed from PhD friends. They are too busy laughing, anyway.

  32. If he proposed a hypothesis, then it would have been open to critique and discarded accordingly. Thus he did not mistake a natural object for a designed one like your friend did. He is asking if natural objects exhibit design. Alternatively, all you are doing is assuming a priori that all natural objects are not designed.

  33. He is asking if natural objects exhibit design. Alternatively, all you are doing is assuming a priori that all natural objects are not designed.

    “Natural” objects or phenomena are not designed by an external agent, by definition.

    Duh.

  34. Whose definition?

    Everyone’s definition. Except Chazing’s, of course.

    >>> Biology Online

    2. Conformed to the order, laws, or actual facts, of nature; consonant to the methods of nature; according to the stated course of things, or in accordance with the laws which govern events.
    3. Having to do with existing system to things; dealing with, or derived from, the creation, or the world of matter and mind, as known by man; within the scope of human reason or experience; not supernatural; as, a natural law; natural science; history, theology.

    >>> Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural)

    8. Occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural
    12. Of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world

    >>> Oxford Dictionaries
    1. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind

    >>> The Free Dictionary
    1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
    2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
    3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

    In scientific circles, “natural” is the opposite of “supernatural.” Natural phenomena operate strictly according to physical laws; supernatural phenomena are caused by an external agent, such as Shiva or Bokon.

    And why not question even the axioms?

    You’re making no sense again. What axioms?

  35. within the scope of human reason or experience

    So what if something is supernaturally designed to look natural? Would that be designed or natural?

    Natural phenomena operate strictly according to physical laws; supernatural phenomena are caused by an external agent, such as Shiva or Bokon.

    The supernatural can use physical means. Multiple examples are given in the Bible. In Hinduism, Shiva is part of the vast dream of Brahman and so is everything else in the universe. Shiva is thus NOT an external agent. He is strictly speaking not even an agent. So in this case the natural is supernatural and you have contradicted yourself.

    You’re making no sense again. What axioms?

    Now that’s just priceless. You seem to be good at using dictionaries, why stop now?

  36. So what if something is supernaturally designed to look natural? Would that be designed or natural?

    You just said it yourself. If it’s “designed” then it’s designed. What was so hard about that?

    Well, of course creationists get the reverse wrong as well. If something is natural but looks designed, then it is natural. Creationists believe that if it looks designed then a fortiori it has to be designed.

    You seem to be good at using dictionaries, why stop now?

    Because no dictionary will tell me which particular axioms you have in mind. For that, I would need a ouija board.

  37. You just said it yourself. If it’s “designed” then it’s designed. What was so hard about that?

    Nothing, just that I would then like to know what scientific reasoning you would follow to figure out which it is. Illuminate us oh brilliant one.

    Well, of course creationists get the reverse wrong as well. If something is natural but looks designed, then it is natural. Creationists believe that if it looks designed then a fortiori it has to be designed.

    Incorrect. Creationists believe if something exhibits design then it is the result of a designer who implemented laws of which the governed processes produce said design.

    Because no dictionary will tell me which particular axioms you have in mind. For that, I would need a ouija board.

    Wow, seems you can’t even handle this thing called context.

  38. You are sliding the slippery slope to the slough of senselessness.

    Let me know when you feel better. Would you care for some camomile tea?

  39. Oh, I dunno. I think the best circumlocations to have evolved in English are “restroom” for “toilet” (which is itself a circumlocution), or maybe “differently abled” for “crippled.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s