The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Cossax wrote: »

There is no dispute. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. All there is is intellectual dishonesty and gullible people like you who'll believe them and ignore evidence because it fits in with your worldview.

More intellectual dishonesty on your behalf. One of us is blinded by Satan.

********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

I missed this earlier.

Scientia Perceptum wrote: »

Rather than try to quibble about what the author of the rebuttal does or does not believe now, I will focus on your remark, "he argues that, while the program does exhibit an increase in information, it does not comprehensively model a biological system". I would agree with this statement, as I am not claiming that the 'computer simulation of evolution' does not simulate an increase in information in the program, as it is designed by 'intelligent designers' that have made a program with the aim of 'increasing information'.

The claim of creationists is not that it is impossible to create a computer program that can 'increase information', but rather that "there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code". Therefore, to state that this intelligently designed computer program does not "comprehensively model a biological system" is therefore in agreement with my understanding of the problem.

I do not agree, this intelligently designed program is 'supposed' to be a simulation of the Darwinian mechanisms, but since it is not a realistic simulation of biologically complex systems, it does not demonstrate that any new genetic information has been or can be added to living organisms.

This may be your belief, but it is not shared by some highly qualified people that have studied the program in greater detail than I would assume you have. "Genetic algorithms typically succeed because programmers incorporate problem-specific knowledge into the search algorithm. Various examples have been published in the literature. Avida , a program purported to demonstrate evolution, works by rewarding simpler versions of complex components. Dawkin’s “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” simulation works by providing the distance to a target phrase. Ev, another program purported to demonstrate evolution, works by providing the distance to a target along with a biased genomic representation. Such algorithms do not demonstrate the abilities of undirected processes, but rather the powerful combination of human intelligence and brute force computing power. (P2 of pdf)

On the contrary, I think that it is highly relevant that we are not dealing with a 'strictly biological system' as this is the system that creationists are claiming that new genetic information is needed to be added to. The system being simulated by these intelligently designed computer programs are not 'simulating the complexity that is exhibited in biologically complex systems', such as a 'simple cell', and therefore they do not impact on the creationist claim.

I was unable to access your link as I did not have the ability to see your examples, but unless you wish to quote excerpts from them anyway which demonstrated that new genetic information was added to a biological system, the results would be irrelevant to the creationist claim anyway.

All of these intelligently designed computer simulations have the same basic flaw, in that they rely on the input of complexity before they even begin to 'simulate' anything.

"As with our prior work, we have shown that the search algorithm proposed as an example of the power of natural selection to generate information from scratch in fact demonstrates the abilities of humans to devise genetic algorithms that draw on existing information.... In order to demonstrate the abilities of natural selection, it would be necessary to avoid making any decisions in the development of the genetic algorithm that deliberately assist in finding the solution. Only a teleological process guided by some form of intelligence can function in this way. Insofar as simulations of evolution make use of prior knowledge, they are not simulations of Darwinian evolution in any meaningful sense." (P13 of pdf)

I am not sure that I do agree with this statement. I can see that information theory is perfectly consistent with complexity, as it appears that these intelligently designed computer programs do have something to tell us about the complexity of the cell, as they both seem to rely on the input of a 'code' to run the systems. The computer 'code' is written by the computer programmers but the DNA code seems to be more more complex and to exhibit a greater degree of efficiency that the computer code, perhaps signifying that the author of the DNA code is much more Intelligent that the computer code authors I am not convinced though that information theory is compatible with Darwinism. Are trying to suggest that an 'unguided' process can create either a computer program or a biologically complex system?

The above can be distilled into the following objections:

a) The scope of the program does not extend to living organisms.
b) The program was intelligently designed.

The first can be answered simply. While the programs do not comprehensively model living organisms, the consequences and behaviour of Darwinian mechanisms exhibited by the programs have been extended to living organisms, and in conjunction with experimental evidence, have affirmed the increase in information in living organisms via Darwinian mechanisms. This is evidenced by the papers which cite the program, and the resultant papers. In other words, the attempt by creationists to establish a principle of information theory which constrains the increase in biological information to intelligent processes is refuted by the program, and conjectured obstacles to the increase of information in living organisms have not been demonstrated.

The second objection arises from a misapplication of analogies. The program is intelligently designed. The rules are intelligently designed. The resultant code complexity is not. Similarly, a creationist could argue that the laws of physics are intelligently designed. They would be wrong, but more importantly, they would not be arguing against evolution, since plenty of people are theistic evolutionists. They might go further and say the first few bits of DNA had to be intelligently designed, but then the discussion is no longer about evolution, but instead about abiogenesis (and, like before, they would be incorrect).

As I had limited time when I made my last post, I did not want to go into any great detail on the paper itself, but I did notice some things about it that made it appear to be either wrong or irrelevant to the creationist claim that you seem to think that it demolishes.

In the opening paragraph he points us to a paper published in 1948 by Claude Shannon and gives us his definition of information. The problem is, creationist are not questioning this definition of Shannon information, but rather we are claiming that this is the wrong sort of information and that rather what should be being discussed is the type of prescriptive information found in cells. It may be useful to watch the whole program, but here is an excerpt from the program which describes the differences between the different types of information and demonstrates that the Shannon information that the paper you quoted used is irrelevant to the claim that creationists make about the information in living organisms.

The full video of the Progamming of life can be found here.

So I would say that though these intelligently designed computer programs are very interesting and may have some limited use, they do nothing to refute the creationist claim that "there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code".

As you may be aware Michael Behe explored the papers published about actual biological systems in his book "The edge of evolution" and showed that the Darwinian mechanism is only capable of a few small steps, and that it is incapable of producing the vast amount of increase in biologically complex information that we see in organisms by purely naturalistic processes.

Dr. J. C. Sandford also demonstrated the that natural selection and mutations are only a downhill process in all real life examples that have been studied in his book " Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome".

The notion of "special" complexity is common among ID proponents. I am most familiar with the work of William Dembski when it comes to this line of argument. The demand for "specified" or "prescriptive" information complexity is thoroughly rejected, not only by the scientific community of molecular biologists, but also by information theorists. Dembski's, and to a lesser extent Behe's strategy is effectively to establish a giant straw-man, construct some consistent principles around the straw man, and present it in books, and notoriously ambiguous ID journals like the bio-complexity one you linked to. Ironically, they have never established such principles in the domain of biology.

lmaopml wrote: »

While I'm not a Creationist, I like this quote Wolfe. Although I don't think people 'practice' evolution, I do believe that they are excited by learning more, discovering more - what we're made for.

Indeed they do people do practice evolution, "Social Darwinism" quickly became the undeclared ideology of the British Empire because the logical outcome of belief in evolution already fitted in with its practice, the evil parts of the NSADP government in Germany during the 30s and 40s also came from evolutionism- and need I mention Marxism which was very open about its inspiration from Darwin and drew its whole ethics from a belief in continual evolution? Now most people- thank God!- do not take their belief in evolution to its logical conclusions, just as most Christians fail to take their beliefs to their logical conclusion- but there is no denying that a whole string of conclusions flow from believing in evolution.

This inter-evolutionist spat makes informative and entertaining reading:

The descent of Edward Wilson
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species/





******************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Source and about it's about Americans.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good to see the light spreading!

Terrifying.

MrP

Zombrex said:Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is as difficult for most as it is for me to become experts in each scientific field. Those who do are represented by the scientists we already have, creationist and evolutionist. That shows even the experts differ.
Which again is irrelevant. Science is not based on what the "experts" think about something.

Sure, the truth is the truth no matter who believes it. But for most of us scientific fact is taken on the word of experts, not by our own research. And among the experts who do their own research there is disagreement as to what their research indicates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The interpretation is in deciding what the confirmed prediction proves.
Er, what?

Once again I find myself having to explain that what you are talking about isn't science. There is no point in the scientific process where a scientists interprets what the confirmed prediction proves. That is utter nonsense.

The confirmed prediction demonstrates that the prediction was confirmed. Nothing more. There is no interpretation. The prediction was either confirmed or it wasn't.

Prediction - Speed of particle will equal X
Observation - Particle's speed equals X

Prediction confirmed. No interpretation. No "proving" anything.

That's fine - if you guys left it at that. We can all agree on what we see. So how come you assert, for example, that science has shown the earth to be billions of years old? Is that not based on an interpretation of evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Does it prove the model, or is it merely in line with it?
It is "merely in line with it", if by that you mean the model made a prediction and the observation is in line with it.

No problem with that then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Is there another explanation for the result, one that belongs to a contradictory model?
If both models make the same predictions they aren't contradictory models.

You might get two models that make one prediction in one regard and another in a different circumstance. But you test both circumstances and see which model is accurate in both circumstances. You then reject the model that wasn't (or both if neither was).

I was thinking of how the Creation and Evolution models both predict speciation, yet are contradictory models.

There is no "interpretations" or "explanations" for the result. Scientists are not sitting around going "Umm, now what I think just happened there was this"

How then do you account for the widespread use of the Tree of Life by evolutionists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I trust them because they are known to me personally as honest men and women, or they have that testimony from these men. I'm supported in that trust by the arrogant claims of one evolutionist over other evolutionists - showing that their arrogant dismissal of creationists has no credibility.
So you trust one group of scientists over another because the first group are "honest" and the other group are "arrogant"

Nothing to do with whether their theories are actually scientifically supported or not. Fair enough. Apparently honest men don't make mistakes or have biases.

If you ever bother to find out how science works you will realize that how honest or arrogant individual scientists are is actually irrelevant.

The question is as to whether or not their theories are actually scientifically supported. One lot says they are, the other not. Yes, honest men do make mistakes and are subject to bias. That applies to honest men on both sides.

But if you are content to limit science to observed facts, there will be no disagreement between Creationists and Evolutionists. I doubt that will get science very far though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As above, the experiment tends to confirm the model - but it may well be common to a contradictory model. The faulty interpretation occurs when one asserts the experiment proves the model is true.
Nothing in science is ever proved true (again a fundamental misunderstanding of science).

OK, my apologies for using the common term for 'apparently confirmed'. I appreciate that the established 'truth' of one day can be overthrown by the discovery of further hard facts. So isn't it strange that when I suggest Evolution may be mistaken that I'm ridiculed for not believing science?

And again if two models make the same prediction they are not contradictory. They have to make contradictory predictions, and then you see which one of the predictions matches the observation.

As above, Creation and Evolution both predict speciation. But you are correct when you say the test is where their predictions are contradictory.

********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Regarding Wolfsbane's comments about experts in the field: The vast vast vast majority of experts, from a variety of different religious and cultural backgrounds accept evolution. A tiny percentage of scientists, usually in unrelated fields, have issues with evolution, and they are almost entirely Christian, and their issues have been resolved.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Gasp! :eek: Surely you are not questioning Zombrex's wisdom:
Science is not based on what the "experts" think about something. Zombrex, post 773, page 52.[/B]

The scientific method isn't, but scientific consensus is based on the position of the relevant experts. The consensus is a handy stochastic or short cut to acceptance of knowledge for scientists working in unrelated fields.

For example, I worked in immunology research and was able to see first-hand how the scientific method was employed in the acquisition of new scientific knowledge and to the building of consensus positions within my field. If I can establish with confidence that experts working in an unrelated field- such as botany- have followed the same method, I can logically infer that their consensus position is similarly sound without having to become an expert in another field.

Some possible caveats to this are the size of the field (a consensus of the five guys who study the western Mauritian striped humming slug is not very compelling) and any potential biasing influences (think pharmaceuticals sales reps during the 90's or indeed pretty much any interface between research and industry).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed. I was not denying a scientific majority/consensus in favour of evolution. I was merely pointing out that some experts in the relevant fields argue the case for an alternative explanation of the evidence.

Can you name me an expert in the relevant field who argues for the alternative but is not also religious?

Given the assertion made so often by J_C that intelligent design is a purely scientific proposition, don't you think it odd that it is never proposed or supported by biologists unless they are religious?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, a reasonable assumption. Reasonable, but not absolutely reliable.

Most scientists would accept that no assumption- however logical or well founded- is absolutely reliable. The only certainty is that certainty is impossible. This doesn't mean that we can't rationally judge relative levels of reliability. Basing our assumptions on a logical inference from direct and externally verifiable evidence is many orders of magnitude more reliable than basing them on axioms, particularly axioms placed in a framework which makes a point of discouraging doubt and testing ("blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed", right?).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. Bias can distort the conclusions of even experts, be they creationist or evolutionist. When the world-view is at stake, one can be quick to see the side that affirms rather than the one that does not.

Firstly- I would have no doubt that confirmation bias exists within that consensus. However, the problem for you is that evolution doesn't suggest any specific worldview- lots of disparate worldviews fit with it simply because they don't address questions on the origin of species. Like most scientific theories, evolution does clash with some specific worldviews. So there's not much incentive to promote evolution unless one has an agenda against other specific worldviews. In general, the scientific community is ambivalent or disinterested in religions except where they come into conflict with the community's goals. If that conflict were the impetus for a bias in favour of evolutionary theory, we'd expect the consensus to be mostly upheld by two groups: educators (e.g. biology teachers) and researchers in ethically contentious fields such as embryonic stem cells and synthetic life. But we don't see this- the consensus completely transcends the fields of biology and chemistry. That's a whole load of people with very little philosophical, financial or emotional investment, who agree with the consensus.

wolfsbane wrote: »

To the bias I would add peer-pressure as a significant distorter of conclusions.

Of course peer pressure will tend to work to maintain the status quo in all social groups- I think that that's inevitable. However, it does not work to the same extent in all social groups. The scientific community is notable (though not unique) for philosophically extolling challenges to the status quo and incentivizing this behavior via the publication and award systems. Nobel prizes are not given to people who accept the consensus.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fear of ridicule and/or loss of credibility/career has shut many a mouth.

It didn't shut Darwin up, nor Mendel, Watson and Crick, Dawkins... to name just a few within the field of biology. The body of scientific knowledge is growing and being refined at an ever-increasing pace. If this fear you mention were really so potent, then scientific knowledge should be stagnating- at the very least in the field of biology. Further if the community were hanging onto a consensus that were significantly in error, that also ought to be hampering progress and yet somehow we are making discoveries at an unprecedented rate.