Expelled

[Mallon]

I am sure the Nazi parallel is offensive, but its not like anyone can prove him wrong (or right). Its just an argument with some logic. If you misapply that logic to require that Darwinism cause literal pogroms at Harvard, then it would sound absurd. But, the argument is only a form of "but for" causation -- ie, it was one of many contributing factors.

If Darwinism was one of many contributing factors to the Holocaust, then so is religion. Hitler did claim to be doing the bidding of God, after all.

I wonder how long until Mathis makes a film about that...

 

[busterdog]

If Darwinism was one of many contributing factors to the Holocaust, then so is religion. Hitler did claim to be doing the bidding of God, after all.

That would make him a theological Darwinist? Just kidding.

But yes, you are right about religion.

 

[Assyrian]

Here's an idea. Maybe Stein is more clever than either side realises. Maybe as a Jew he is disgusted by the way right wing Christians want to blame the holocaust on Darwin when Hitler's antisemitism has clear roots going way back to the Catholic crusades, Luther's antisemitism and one and a half millennia of persecution and murder in Christian Europe, which we as Christians should be ashamed and sickened was done in our name. Instead Christian creationists and IDists use the memory of the holocaust as a tool to smear evolution. So Stein the comedian helps them make the film so their own hypocrisy can be exposed.

 

[Critias]

Apparently I didn't listen carefully enough. How does he use them differently?

I haven't seen the movie so I'd have to assume that I know what he believes to answer your questions, in which I don't.

 

[Markus6]

I haven't seen the movie so I'd have to assume that I know what he believes to answer your questions, in which I don't.

What do you think is the difference between evolutionism and darwinism?

 

[Willtor]

Regarding Nazism, you absolutely right.

However, we would argue that it was a "slippery slope", sort of like what we were taught about drugs in school: try a little pot and you are bound to be shooting up. There is no 1 for 1 correlation, but very few people didnt smoke before trying heroin. But, many people who smoked pot never really took more than a very passing interest. Its a confusing area, and I think that people would like Ben Stein to be more confused about it than he really is. Most of the soundbites are taking advantave of this inherent confusion in these ideas about causation.

As for randomness, conceptually, I have a real hard time with the notion of "semi-randomness" or partial randomness. If you look at, for example, the mathematical power of life processes to overcome the odds against functioning enzymes, is any concept of partial randomness really valid?

Said otherwise, if you take a "inherent property" (or ID) that is well-matched to a "random" process, such that life processes result, how exactly do you segregate any portion of the whole to make one part random and one part "inherent" or "designed?" An inherent proclivity to take advantage of randomness (assuming it exists) means that there isn't any randomness anymore. Whatever is "random" is subsumed by the inherent properties. If design is an even number and random an odd number, when you multiply them, you always get an even number and you can't get an odd number.

To me, the latter issue is the core of the current ID v. Darwinism debate. Most evolutionists are blowing by it. ID has not quite discovered the fertile ground in neo-Darwinism. I think that would be a great OT thread, though we have had a few go rounds. I just don't think it is well understood by creationists or evolutionists.

As for "partial randomness", this notion also betrays an interesting idea: much of the territory presumed to be random has given way to notions of inherent properties of molecules to create life (or ID). It would be presumptious to say that randomness is not an unexplained area where designed might eventually be discovered.

Gluadys talked about randomness more than adequately. But so that I can phrase it in my own words (because that's the kind of guy I am):

You may be very right that there is design in what we perceive to be randomness. As I said, I have written a number of programs that use evolution as the premise for their functionality. But the "randomness" that I use isn't random at all! On the contrary, one of the great puzzles in computer science is how to devise a random number generator that's fast and gives good distribution. I, for one, certainly don't think that the randomness (read "unpredictability") in nature is beyond the providence of God. Nevertheless, insofar as it is unpredictable we call it random.

But, again, all that aside, although randomness (unpredictability) is necessary in evolution, it is only one part and it is insufficient on its own. In fact, Darwin didn't even know about it. One of the perceived weaknesses in his theory was that there was no mechanism in descent for divergence.

 

[busterdog]

Gluadys talked about randomness more than adequately. But so that I can phrase it in my own words (because that's the kind of guy I am):

You may be very right that there is design in what we perceive to be randomness. As I said, I have written a number of programs that use evolution as the premise for their functionality. But the "randomness" that I use isn't random at all! On the contrary, one of the great puzzles in computer science is how to devise a random number generator that's fast and gives good distribution. I, for one, certainly don't think that the randomness (read "unpredictability") in nature is beyond the providence of God. Nevertheless, insofar as it is unpredictable we call it random.

But, again, all that aside, although randomness (unpredictability) is necessary in evolution, it is only one part and it is insufficient on its own. In fact, Darwin didn't even know about it. One of the perceived weaknesses in his theory was that there was no mechanism in descent for divergence.

How is it helpful to focus on either of two alleged factors in causation when both factors are not understood?

So the model is X (intrinsic property favoring beneficial mutation) multiplied by Y (randomness in some mechanics, such as recombination) = a new beneficial trait or species.

But, what is the point when we don't know how or why X is X and we are not even sure that Y exists, since there may not be any true randomness? Once you start dealing in "intrinsic properties" tending toward evolution or abiogenesis, but you don't know where or why they exist, you can't have randomness. It would like be like being half pregnant, unless and until you can prove true randomness exists.

Since you can't prove it, why the loose talk about probability?.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallon
I would praise God for healing me regardless of whether I prayed for it or not. I would also praise God for healing me regardless of whether I could explain it naturally or not. God is behind all processes, both miraculous and natural.

I still give glory to God for the food on my table, even though I know the farmers harvested it, the truckers brought it to the grocery store, and the grocery store sold it to me.

The creationist problem with evolution, etc, however, is that it evolution does propose miracles of its own and refuses to recognize God's miracles or put a name with those miracles.

Evolutionary processes are either extraordinarily unlikely (see neoDarwinism and the Altenburg 16) or attributed to some "inherent properties" of DNA, which properties are of completely uncertain origin.

I still dont see how conventional science is less miraculous, except in semantics.

Science has a false distinction between "natural" and "miraculous." The most "natural" processes scientifically keep coming back to the basic SUnday school proof of God which is that someone must have just made it that way because nothing like this happens on its own.

Where all this leaves you is with a notion of intrinsic properties of matter suggesting evolution and an notion of intelligent design that is pretty much the same thing.

 

[Mallon]

The creationist problem with evolution, etc, however, is that it evolution does propose miracles of its own and refuses to recognize God's miracles or put a name with those miracles.

As I asked in the neocreationist subforum, what miracles of evolution are you referring to, specifically?

 

[busterdog]

As I asked in the neocreationist subforum, what miracles of evolution are you referring to, specifically?

It is a miracle that any process overcame the odds to create functioning enzymes. I hope we don't need to distinguish between miracles and things that are very unlikely that happen, and about which all we can say is "just because they are that way."

The whole idea of things that are "improbable" or "miraculous" is a major problem. There is lots of imprecise talk in this area. What this leads to is goofy notions like panspermia, rather than praising the God of Genesis.

Is there a better word that miracle? Maybe there is. But, lets just understand that the range of meaning in this area includes that kind of notion.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I would like to begin a discussion about the first glimmerings of a new scientific world view — beyond reductionism to emergence and radical creativity in the biosphere and human world. This emerging view finds a natural scientific place for value and ethics, and places us as co-creators of the enormous web of emerging complexity that is the evolving biosphere and human economics and culture. In this scientific world view, we can ask: Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.[/FONT]

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman06/kauffman06_index.html

By Stuart A Kaufman.

[SIZE=small]Meanwhile, Kauffman's had a breathtaking career, beginning as a medical doctor, honored as a MacArthur fellow (genius) and has worked with Nobel prize winner Murray Gell-Mann at the Santa Fe Institute where he first studied self-organization. Looking at simple forms like the snowflake, he noted that its "delicate sixfold symmetry tells us that order can arise without the benefit of natural selection". Kauffman says natural selection is about competition for resources and snowflakes are not alive -- they don't need it. [/size]​

[SIZE=small]But he reminded me in our phone conversation that Darwin doesn't explain how life begins, "Darwin starts with life. He doesn't get you to life." [/size]​

[SIZE=small]Thus the scramble at Altenberg for a new theory of evolution. [/size]​

[SIZE=small]But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity. [/size]​

[SIZE=small]Here's what he told me over the phone: [/size]​

[SIZE=small]"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?" [/size]

​

[SIZE=small]It's getting pretty staggering I told him. But there was more to come as he took me into his rugged landscapes theory – hopping out of one lake into a mountain pass and flowing down a creek into another lake and then wiggling the mountains and changing where the lakes are – all to demonstrate that the cell and the organism are a very complicated set of processes activating and inhibiting one another. "It's really much broader than genes," he said. [/size]​

[SIZE=small]Kauffman presents some of this in his new book Reinventing the Sacred. [/size]​

[SIZE=small]And natural selection is back in the equation. [/size]​

[SIZE=small]In his book Investigations (2000), Kauffman wrote that "self-organization mingles with natural selection in barely understood ways to yield the magnificence of our teeming biosphere".[/size]

http://s8int.com/phile/art-darwin-defection.html

Kaufman again.

 

[Mallon]

You're talking about abiogenesis again, busterdog. Not evolution. I asked you about evolution.

 

[busterdog]

You're talking about abiogenesis again, busterdog. Not evolution. I asked you about evolution.

Why is it different? It terms of mathematics and probability, how is if different? The odds are long either way.

Lets take evolution from the first speck of life to the first algae -- you have the same problem.

Going from marmot-like mammal to chimp, that takes many hugely, vastly complex mutations, would it not?

Kaufman uses a similar logic for abiogenesis and his analysis of enzymatic reactions in cells. The latter is not abiogenesis. Sometimes you just need to do with the post to get somewhere.

 

[Mallon]

Why is it different?

It's different the same way the theory of relatively explains gravity but doesn't explain the origin of gravity.

Going from marmot-like mammal to chimp, that takes many hugely, vastly complex mutations, would it not?

It would certainly take many mutations, accumulated over millions of years. But why do you say they need to be "vastly complex"? Even the simplest of mutations can greatly alter bodyplans.

 

[Willtor]

How is it helpful to focus on either of two alleged factors in causation when both factors are not understood?

So the model is X (intrinsic property favoring beneficial mutation) multiplied by Y (randomness in some mechanics, such as recombination) = a new beneficial trait or species.

But, what is the point when we don't know how or why X is X and we are not even sure that Y exists, since there may not be any true randomness? Once you start dealing in "intrinsic properties" tending toward evolution or abiogenesis, but you don't know where or why they exist, you can't have randomness. It would like be like being half pregnant, unless and until you can prove true randomness exists.

Since you can't prove it, why the loose talk about probability?.

Ah, no. It doesn't really matter whether the process is ontologically random. It's random as far as testing is concerned. That's why I say "unpredictable." It may not be random at all, but since we can't predict it, and since the possibilities seem to fit a uniform distribution - whatever the actual nature of the process - it is sufficient for scientific purposes. If you are under the impression that evolution requires ontologically random processes to function, that's incorrect. As I mentioned, in my own engineering, I have used pseudo-random functions and they are amply sufficient for my purposes.

If it's the word "random" that bothers you, I don't mind using "humanly unpredictable - insofar as we have been able to determine so far" but _do_ realize that other people are going to use the term "random" without meaning random in the ontological sense. Science may exclude certain ontologies but it doesn't characterize them.

As an aside, I've read a lot of creationist literature and it seems as though most authors either have difficulty distinguishing between perceptions and ontology or think that scientists think they have a grasp on the latter through science. It's almost a visceral reaction to ideas like the beginning of the universe or the origin of man (or life) - as if science was asking the same questions that the spirit asks. It's true that many scientists are inspired (because of their work) to ask the spiritual questions but they _are_ spiritual questions, not scientific ones.

 

[busterdog]

Ah, no. It doesn't really matter whether the process is ontologically random. It's random as far as testing is concerned. That's why I say "unpredictable." It may not be random at all, but since we can't predict it, and since the possibilities seem to fit a uniform distribution - whatever the actual nature of the process - it is sufficient for scientific purposes. If you are under the impression that evolution requires ontologically random processes to function, that's incorrect. As I mentioned, in my own engineering, I have used pseudo-random functions and they are amply sufficient for my purposes.

If it's the word "random" that bothers you, I don't mind using "humanly unpredictable - insofar as we have been able to determine so far" but _do_ realize that other people are going to use the term "random" without meaning random in the ontological sense. Science may exclude certain ontologies but it doesn't characterize them.

As an aside, I've read a lot of creationist literature and it seems as though most authors either have difficulty distinguishing between perceptions and ontology or think that scientists think they have a grasp on the latter through science. It's almost a visceral reaction to ideas like the beginning of the universe or the origin of man (or life) - as if science was asking the same questions that the spirit asks. It's true that many scientists are inspired (because of their work) to ask the spiritual questions but they _are_ spiritual questions, not scientific ones.

What interests me is that evolutionists have gotten over randomness and required processes that inherently overcome very long odds and great complexity. And yet the "process" is really of an unknown origin and is only partially understood.

THe notion that it is predictable and therefore understood is a pipe dream. A process that can overcome barriers to life and "evolution" must be so powerful, that our very narrow slice of experience cannot possibly say with any confidence that it is predictable in the long term.

All of the foregoing are aspects of theology.

 

[gluadys]

What interests me is that evolutionists have gotten over randomness and required processes that inherently overcome very long odds and great complexity.

What puzzles me is why randomness (especially understood as unpredictability) and long odds and great complexity are seen as barriers to accepting that evolution happens and has happened. Why does evolution and all its sub-processes (mutation, gene expression, variation, etc.) have to be simple to be acceptable?

And yet the "process" is really of an unknown origin and is only partially understood.

And therefore.....? what?

THe notion that it is predictable and therefore understood is a pipe dream.

Maybe there is puzzlement here about what can and cannot be currently predicted. In some ways the predictability of evolution is like the predictability of a lottery. One cannot predict what number will be drawn, but one can predict the odds of any number being drawn.

We say mutations are unpredictable when we focus on when, where, and why they occur or what effect they will have. But we can predict that there will be mutations. We can even, to some extent, predict how many mutations will occur over a given period, for we have some measures of mutation rates.

The same goes for other sub-processes of evolution.

A process that can overcome barriers to life and "evolution" must be so powerful, that our very narrow slice of experience cannot possibly say with any confidence that it is predictable in the long term.

So, predictable in what sense? Can we predict that under certain circumstances life will certainly occur? Not as far as I know. Even if we surmise that under certain circumstances, life is a well-nigh inevitable consequence, do we know what those circumstances are? Not as far as I know. That is why we have no coherent theory of abiogenesis yet.

What we do know is that we do have life and all the living forms we know evolve, so we have confidence that the earliest living forms were evolving too.

All of the foregoing are aspects of theology.

Both science and theology. After all, if we understand that God is the author and sustainer of all that exists, nothing happens scientifically without God.

And if we understand that nothing happens scientifically without God, why are randomness and long odds and complexity barriers that stand in the way of accepting evolution? or even, if and when we get a theory, of accepting abiogenesis?

What is really the theological issue?

 

[Willtor]

What interests me is that evolutionists have gotten over randomness and required processes that inherently overcome very long odds and great complexity. And yet the "process" is really of an unknown origin and is only partially understood.

The odds are not that long. After all, we wouldn't engineer with it if desired results didn't reliably come in.

THe notion that it is predictable and therefore understood is a pipe dream. A process that can overcome barriers to life and "evolution" must be so powerful, that our very narrow slice of experience cannot possibly say with any confidence that it is predictable in the long term.

Nobody said it was predictable in the long term. It isn't even predictable in the short term. Are you under the impression that evolutionary scientists are making predictions about what is going to happen in the future?

All of the foregoing are aspects of theology.

How so?

 

[busterdog]

The odds are not that long. After all, we wouldn't engineer with it if desired results didn't reliably come in.

Engineered results are not experimental observations of anything but engineering.

Nobody said it was predictable in the long term. It isn't even predictable in the short term. Are you under the impression that evolutionary scientists are making predictions about what is going to happen in the future?

I think we agree that they cant. In otherwords, the creative force that underlies where we came from is beyond them.

How so?

This theory invokes mystery and virtually infinite power to overcome barriers to make life from nothing and new species from old species. It has everything but the name of a god attached to it.

 

[Willtor]

Engineered results are not experimental observations of anything but engineering.

Engineering is in the basis of science. If you can't engineer something to demonstrate a principle, you can't scientifically argue for the model. If you can engineer it, you can begin to argue it scientifically. All the "testing" and "experimentation" that you hear about in science - that's all engineering. Evolutionary algorithms don't demonstrate that evolution happens in nature, but they do demonstrate that it can. If evolution suffers from deficiency (as I understand you think it does) it isn't a logical deficiency. In other words, the trouble with evolution does not lie with mutations and natural selection.

I think we agree that they cant. In otherwords, the creative force that underlies where we came from is beyond them.

Yes, of course. In an earlier post I pointed out that science, itself, does not ask the spiritual questions. I'm not quite clear on why you raise the issue to begin with? Be wary of the creationist literature that suggests that science thinks it's answering spiritual questions. Science isn't. It can't. It doesn't have the tools to do so. Creationist books/websites/etc. that suggest that science thinks it does are deceptive.

This theory invokes mystery and virtually infinite power to overcome barriers to make life from nothing and new species from old species. It has everything but the name of a god attached to it.

It doesn't propose anything like that. Creation ex nihilo is, indeed, a theological/philosophical question, but it isn't one that evolution even proposes to address. Again, be wary of creationist sources regarding evolution. Typically they're attacking something they don't understand. Evolution really isn't as mystical as all that. I remember thinking that it was when I was reading Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. But when I started reading up on evolution, I found that it was quite different from what they had indicated.

 

[Mallon]

This theory invokes mystery and virtually infinite power to overcome barriers to make life from nothing and new species from old species. It has everything but the name of a god attached to it.

1) Biological evolution isn't abiogenesis, busterdog. Honestly, I don't know how many times you need to be told this. I'm starting to think you're being rather disingenuous and thick-skulled on this point. Evolution occurs, regardless of whether life came about via natural means or in a magical puff of smoke.
2) We see new species borne of old species all the time. And we can account for the natural mechanisms that brought them about. Here's a recent example:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001907
I'm perfectly happy to admit God orchestrates speciation, but do we really have to hide behind our ignorance in order to give him the glory for it?

 

[busterdog]

1) Biological evolution isn't abiogenesis, busterdog. Honestly, I don't know how many times you need to be told this. I'm starting to think you're being rather disingenuous and thick-skulled on this point. Evolution occurs, regardless of whether life came about via natural means or in a magical puff of smoke.
2) We see new species borne of old species all the time. And we can account for the natural mechanisms that brought them about. Here's a recent example:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001907
I'm perfectly happy to admit God orchestrates speciation, but do we really have to hide behind our ignorance in order to give him the glory for it?

If the Yankees are 5/1 favorites over the Expos and the Flyers are 5/1 favorites over the Ducks, is the probability the same or do we pretend the numbers are different because the game is different?

And Kaufman specifically was talking about enzymes NOT involved in abiogenesis. The article put both processes on the same page as similar issues of probability, but I can't put them together in the same post?