Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

The Barbarian said:

So far, that approach has been an utter failure.

Click to expand...

How do you think you know what the components of reality are ? If you do not think that you know - upon what basis are you making this claim ?

The Barbarian said:

Until someone can figure out how to make it actually produce usable results, people will depend on science to understand nature, and faith/theology to understand the spiritual.

Click to expand...

There is no shortage of usable results - theology is doing a fine job of producing usable results, as is figuring reality out by working with all potential sources as the human race has been doing for all of history. There is no "until someone...." because it is already happening, no need to wait.

KomatiiteBIF said:

If you disagree with my response, why don't you try to explain what he was talking about?

Click to expand...

Where did I say I disagreed with your response?

RC Tent said:

What if to get the most accurate sense of reality we need to go with a blend from different sources?

Click to expand...

Modern medicine, homeopathy, witch doctors, etc. Sounds like a good blend to you?

Objective, subjective, physical realm, spiritual realm, experience, theory and art and science?

Click to expand...

So far, that approach has been an utter failure.

RC Tent said:

How do you think you know what the components of reality are ?

Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that it doesn't work. If it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

Until someone can figure out how to make it actually produce usable results, people will depend on science to understand nature, and faith/theology to understand the spiritual.

There is no shortage of usable results - theology is doing a fine job of producing usable results,

Click to expand...

Tell us how well your blend works. What has theology mixed with science done lately that's useful?

RC Tent said:

What you have in science is a standard whereby, by definition, all possibilities except for those that are entirely physical must be excluded. That is exclusively physical, it is not more objective.

Click to expand...

Science is, by its methodology, limited to the natural. However, nothing else we know how to do, works better at that. But, as I've pointed out, it's not useful for theological questions.

RC Tent said:

Where did I say I disagreed with your response?

Click to expand...

Mouse implied that I was rejecting his response unjustifiably. You came to him in what appeared to be support by saying:

"One of my biggest reasons for doubting evolution is exactly this - "everyone who disagrees is wrong"".

My apologies for being mistaken thinking that you were agreeing with mouses conclusion with respect to how I had judged his description of information.

"
Until someone can figure out how to make it actually produce usable results, people will depend on science to understand nature, and faith/theology to understand the spiritual."

As human beings, we really are limited in what we can observe. We only have a particular spectrum observable to us, which is physical reality. We can't touch something non-physical.

Simultaneously, without the ability to observe something, we are "left in the dark" with respect to how certain things may or may not exist. This is when our imagination can weight in and can manipulate our ideas of what is true and what isn't.

The reason science is superior things like...astrology, is because it deals with factors that can be directly observed. Science deals with things that we can tough and taste, hear, smell and see. And nothing is more real (to our knowledge) than that which we perceive.

So if we run into a conflict between that which we can see, touch, smell, taste and hear, and that which someone thinks is stated in scripture (which is not physically observed). We have to defer to our senses.

There truly is no more accurate way to perceive God's creation, than doing it first hand through scientific research by looking at it, touching it, putting it under a telescope, smashing it in machines, tasting it, smelling it, testing it, observing it, etc.

And this is science.

NobleMouse said:

Not my responsibility. You can go looking to me for answers that only others can provide, but that is your own foolishness. When do the bears come out on the tricycles with the little hats with tassels on this clown show where NobleMouse has to answer questions where it would make more logical sense to go directly to the source to find them? I'm willing to look at the scientifically observed evidence if you or @sfs have some to show, but so far all I've gotten are inferences, assumptions, and typical debate tactics. I mean, the one is a PhD in genetics and the other has a Masters (I think) In geology, so can't you guys come up with anything more concrete? I think you're both due for a relaxing break and getting some fresh air.

Click to expand...

If you can't provide justification for your own words, then that is your own problem, not mine.

You could say the same to me, however; last I checked, scientists are the ones landing space crafts on Mars. Young earth Creationists are just running failed Noah's ark museums in nowheresville Kentucky.

The proof is in the pudding.

NobleMouse said:

Also, my worldview doesn't require that information increase/decrease. It assumes God created all the information needed at the time of creation. Your worldview is the on that requires new information to come from somewhere because it assumes all life has a universal ancestor. That is your problem to deal with and explain, not mine. Go deal with it.

Click to expand...

Well, if "information" cannot be defined and is a completely made up term, then obviously my side doesn't have to demonstrate an increase or decrease of it either.

Your claims that evolution cannot produce new or increasing quantities of information is meaningless to both of us.

You're the one who is using the term, which means that you are responsible for defining it, as it pertains to genetics and evolution , which you have not done.

If you cannot define what information looks like in the real world, then there is no possible way to judge if evolution could or could not result in the increase or decrease of it.

I could argue that yecism cannot produce new shimmeyshambles, but if i cannot define shimmeyshambles and can't provide any means of observing it, the onus is not on you to do so.

Simply saying that common ancestry requires new information, then failing to define what that even looks like, is a failed argument.

And so I ask again:

how might information increases or decreases be observed in genetics? How can information even be quantified in genetics? How would someone know that evolution could not produce new information?

RC Tent said:

Citation needed.

Click to expand...

Sure. It's not hard.

Go to the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin."
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

Then check the numbers for "Project Steve." Project Steve lists all the people who have doctorates in biology or a related field, are named "Steve" or some variation of the name, and who accept evolutionary theory.
List of Steves

So far, there are 1438 "Steves" on the "Project Steve" list. Because the Discovery Institute doesn't limit their list to biologists or people named "Steve", you have to cull it down.

Go though the Discovery Institute's list, and count the number named "Steve", who have doctorates in biology or a related field.

Both lists have probably been updated since I counted about a year ago, but you'll get a very similar number.

Edit: just checked the Discovery Institute's list. There are seven "Steves" with degrees in biological sciences (I didn't limit it to doctorates, and included engineers)

With that, it's about 0.5 percent. Drop the engineers, and it's about 0.3 percent.

Four Noble mouse,

Imagine if Isaac Newton made the claim that gravity existed but then failed to define how gravity or its effects, could be observed.

This is exactly what you are doing with regards to information. you made the claim that evolution could not produce new information but then failed to describe what new information would even look like as it pertains to genetics.

Instead you suggested that the burden of description is on the scientists even though you are the one who initially made the claim with reference information.

In your opinion, what is it about common descent that objectively demonstrates the formation of new information?

sfs said:

Those are all the same people. ID, at least in its anti-evolution version, is just a form of creationism, and there really aren't any other scientists who reject evolution besides creationists.

Click to expand...

There really are scientists that do exactly that. Not that Richard Dawkins is one of them, but I think it is rather clear that his world view has him stuck with it despite this....

"Other critics object to Darwinism for precisely the opposite reason. They fear that evolutionary theory, even when buttressed by modern genetics and molecular biology, does not make reality probable enough. Reality seems too precarious, too much a product of blind luck. No one has worked harder to solve the improbability problem than the biologist Richard Dawkins. Ironically, Dawkins has also revealed how deep and possibly intractable the problem is."

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution

"The ID research community has produced much more than simply one objection to evolution on scientific grounds--it has produced many volumes objecting to evolution on scientific grounds." This web site also points out that ID is not the same thing as Creationism.

FAQ: Is intelligent design just creationism (or creationism "in disguise")?

You are really stretching the truth to argue that scientifically motivated objections to evolution, coming from scientists, do not exist.

The Barbarian said:

Sure. It's not hard.
Go to the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin."

Click to expand...

You mean you worked it out from a list? You did not actually base the claim on research that was designed to produce an accurate figure? You used a list of one's that the DI know about and calculated a figure from that?

I think I will just leave this one as it is, it seems to speak for itself.

sfs said:

Well, you can believe that all you want, but you're wrong. You are not born with the DNA sequence to deal with all the different bacteria you encounter. You generate new antibodies when your body randomly mutates DNA in certain of your cells and selects DNA that happens to produce proteins (i.e. antibodies) that bind to the new invader. If a DNA sequence does indeed represent information, you did not have the information needed to make all of your antibodies. It just wasn't present in your body.

Click to expand...

The fact that I'm not born with the DNA sequence to deal with all the different bacteria I encounter (but my ancestors likely did encounter) seems like good evidence against evolution... we're not passing down alleged "new information from mutations" for future generations to deal with these issues.

Again, at this point you're just making assertions that have nothing to do with reality. Which mutations are not the result of random processes?

Click to expand...

The one I wrote below and you responded, starting with "Uh, what?...." so I'll respond there.

Uh, what? This is so confused that it's hard to unpack. We have similar pigmentation response to the sun because we share a small number of mutations that happened a long time ago; we don't all evolve new traits on the spot.

Click to expand...

On the surface, you appear to maybe be contradicting yourself. At the top you said we don't carry down all of the DNA information to deal with the different bacteria, and now you're saying here that a long time ago we had mutations that DID get carried down for purposes of skin pigmentation and exposure to the sun. Both would seem "beneficial" to retain so why only "pick" the one and not the other?

I'm basically saying that you're talking nonsense about known biology in an attempt to tear down evolution. I haven't said anything about God or interventions.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. ID, creation, and other scientists have already torn it down for me. Like @KomatiiteBIF, you seem to be requiring that I do the work they have already done and explain it to you here. If you disagree with their findings/conclusions, do you think CF is the venue or "vehicle" to be heard and get your issues addressed and shut down this "fringe" groups? With you being someone who has done and published research, I think you know the answer is not CF.

Because then he would have created the gene out of, you know, nothing, not out of similar but nonfunctional DNA.

Click to expand...

That is an assumption and an artifact of your worldview, nothing scientifically observed to contest my worldview that God could have taken a created life form (the initial one from nothing), during creation, and used it as the template to form into another, into another, etc... until the close of the day (day 5 or day 6). Why do you insist he start from scratch ("nothing") every time? Doesn't say that in the Bible, there's no observable evidence to the contrary. You have just rejected an idea for which you again have no scientifically observable evidence, and made some assumptions.

I wasn't talking about your view of the history of life (which is of course also distorted), but your view of the ID movement. They are completely negligible.

Click to expand...

Yes, my view on the history of life, which I contend is what is written in the Bible, is "distorted" - ha ha. Will you turn to trying to discredit and impugn God's word next in order to continue to uphold evolution? I think what the ID folks communicate is pretty clear and is continuing to gain more recognition and respect within scientific circles of many stripes so, like @KomatiiteBIF it seems you are just resorting to ad hominem attacks now and I can only guess but think it's because while I don't articulate the research contradicting evolution to your satisfaction, these other scientists have already cut down the support for evolution to the root and the only place for you to speak from at this point is to criticize them, but not in a way that is to give a 'professional' critique of their work and propose the challenge(s) you see with their research that needs to be overcome or explained, but instead to critique their character.

KomatiiteBIF said:

"

There truly is no more accurate way to perceive God's creation, than doing it first hand through scientific research by looking at it, touching it, putting it under a telescope, smashing it in machines, tasting it, smelling it, testing it, observing it, etc.

And this is science.

Click to expand...

No, that is not science - that is life...every single thing that you have cited here can be done and is every day by people who are not conducting scientific research at all.

That is not science - it is life.

RC Tent said:

You mean you worked it out from a list?

Click to expand...

It's taken from the Discovery Institute's database of "Scientists Who Doubt Darwin." There was some controversy over a number of scientists on the list, who did not want to be on it, and did not doubt Darwin. The Institute seems to have corrected that, and their data is, I believe, accurate at this time.

Likewise the data from Project Steve includes the agreement of each person to be included in that data.

You did not actually base the claim on research that was designed to produce an accurate figure?

Click to expand...

The people who compiled this data would probably object to your characterization of it as "inaccurate." I specifically used data from each side to reduce bias.

You used a list of one's that the DI know about

Click to expand...

And the ones Project Steve knows about. A pretty good sample because it's unbiased toward either side.

and calculated a figure from that?

Click to expand...

Yep. As you know, I gave you a little extra by relaxing some of the rules for IDers. So, maybe a little less than 0.5%.

I think I will just leave this one as it is, it seems to speak for itself.

Click to expand...

Yep. The best approach was to go with the data from each side.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Well, if "information" cannot be defined and is a completely made up term, then obviously my side doesn't have to demonstrate an increase or decrease of it either.

Click to expand...

Every word is a made up word, that's how they exist... someone made them up. There is nothing with the definition of information as understood within the ID camp that contradicts other widely understood concepts of information, nor do I see it clashing in any way with Claude Shannon's definition.

Your claims that evolution cannot produce new or increasing quantities of information is meaningless to both of us.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what God's word says about creation is also meaningless so what are my words to His, I take no offense.

You're the one who is using the term, which means that you are responsible for defining it, as it pertains to genetics and evolution , which you have not done.

Click to expand...

I provided you an entire article on it, I did all the work for you except spoon-feed it into your brain, that was up to you to do.

If you cannot define what information looks like in the real world, then there is no possible way to judge if evolution could or could not result in the increase or decrease of it.

Click to expand...

I don't need to judge it, the ID, creation et. al. scientists have already done so and found that natural processes do not create new information.

I could argue that yecism cannot produce new shimmeyshambles, but if i cannot define shimmeyshambles and can't provide any means of observing it, the onus is not on you to do so.

Click to expand...

Good thing we're not using the term shimmeyshambles then... I guess?

Simply saying that common ancestry requires new information, then failing to define what that even looks like, is a failed argument.

Click to expand...

Ad absurdum again... I provided links to videos and articles on all this stuff and you two ostriches have produced nothing but debate tactics. Look at everything I've quoted above, do you see the nature of your comments, for example, providing an honest review of their work and posing the challenge(s) with their conclusions... or does it look more like you wanting me to define a term (information) in a way that you'll agree with so that you can say a natural process produces new information, even though it has been repeatedly demonstrated that natural processes does not produce the kind of new information needed to create new novel life forms?

When copy errors happen this does not add meaningful information, this does not help or improve the sequencing of DNA, it does not help gene regulatory networks, it just starts degrading the process and if it becomes degraded enough then the health becomes compromised and eventually cells start to wear down, die, grow out of control, etc... they don't cause animals to strip off their scales, grow wings, sprout feathers, and take to flight - that remains the byproduct of wishful thinking without backing by scientifically observed confirmation.

KomatiiteBIF said:

If you can't provide justification for your own words, then that is your own problem, not mine.

You could say the same to me, however; last I checked, scientists are the ones landing space crafts on Mars. Young earth Creationists are just running failed Noah's ark museums in nowheresville Kentucky.

The proof is in the pudding.

Click to expand...

I guess you're done then.

RC Tent said:

FAQ: Is intelligent design just creationism (or creationism "in disguise")?

Click to expand...

The Dover trial settled that issue, by showing "ID" was merely a reworked title for creationism.

In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. Aguillard, a federal judge ruled that creation science did not qualify as a scientific theory, striking down Arkansas' law requiring equal time for creation science and evolution. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that a law requiring that creation science be taught with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.


Throughout the trial, witnesses both for the plaintiffs and the defendants demonstrated how creationism evolved into intelligent design. Witness testimony showed that it was precisely because of its controversial religious message that the School Board adopted intelligent design and not because of any scientific evidence to support it.

Even defense witness, assistant superintendant Mike Baska admitted that School Board member Bill Buckingham discussed creationism at board meetings when discussing the biology curriculum. This came after a year of denying that they were attempting to promote their religious beliefs in the curriculum.
The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover

The most damaging evidence came about when the plantiffs showed that the IDers themselves identified ID as creationism:

Forrest traced the development of Of Pandas and People, an intelligent design-focused textbook that is at the center of the Kitzmiller case. She demonstrated that after the Edwards Supreme Court decision, the publishers substituted the phrase "intelligent design" almost every place that "creationism" had appeared.
ibid

Most telling was one instance in the book where an error blended the two phrases together. The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
"Cdesign Proponentsists"

So not even one creationist here can tell us what "information" means in a population?

Perhaps they should find a decent text on population genetics, and learn. Worth a try.