Preliminary refutation of Darwinism

[Ray Martinez]

The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.

The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.

Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.

-LOGIC-

Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.

The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something that is "designed to occur." This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent, undirected, unguided, and mindless. Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.

Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms accepted to describe effects or diversity, which are pro-teleology concepts. In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa); and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent contradicts organization and order. Thus Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I call the same "contrary-fusion" or confusion.

-SUB-CONCLUSION-

In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.

-ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-

-OBJECTION-

Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random are not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or anti-teleological meaning.

-ANSWER-

The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings, however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms), do indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per their service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs). All the concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid meaning. The meanings I convey are nonetheless valid. To say otherwise denies a basic premise (presence of antonyms conveys contradiction).

-OBJECTION-

Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed known to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme becomes logical automatically.

-ANSWER-

The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme. Therefore the causation proposal cannot and does not exist in the wild. We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring in the wild among species. Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of Darwinists.

-MASTER CONCLUSION-

The inclusion of the concept of "non-random" within the Darwinian episteme serves one purpose: to make the cause-and-effect scheme appear logical, or save the scheme from appearing illogical. Since natural selection is the last or final cause that handles species the concept of non-random becomes a logical necessity for the production of organized or ordered effects. But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly non-teleological or anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings remain intact.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause
> (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity
> and order seen in diversity.

Fine as a religious belief, but is untestable, and unfalsifiable.

>
> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
> causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
> complexity and order seen in diversity.

This has been directly observed to happen in numerous real life
observations.

>
> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and
> are mutually exclusive.

Maybe, but the first was a religious belief, and is unsupported by any
observations. It may safely be ignored as a scientific idea.

> I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation
> operating in the wild;

That's ok. Reality does not require your approval.

> and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or
> immaterial causation operating in the wild.

That's not exactly true. In fact it's what one might call a "lie".
Scientists have long accepted that intelligent beings exist, even in
different species than humans. Many scientists strongly believe in a
supernatural being ( or more than one). However science has no way to
detect, or determine the existence of any "immaterial causes", so out of
practical necessity, scientists have chosen to study only material causes
and effects. You may not agree with that, but the track record of
success that science has had with this can't be gainsaid.


>
> -LOGIC


Hang onto your hats, and be ready for a trip to wacky land...logic need not
apply.

>
> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
> latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.

More or less correct. Non random in that natural selection applies a
decidedly non random bias to the random mutations generated by copy errors,
and substitutions in DNA replication. Mutations which confer some kind
of reproductive advantage become statistically more likely to be conserved.
Those that are fatal, or offer a disadvantage to reproduction become less
conserved. Those that neither give advantage, or detriment may, or may
not be retained.

>
> The *concept* of non-random is teleological;

Wrong. Non random does not require a goal, or a purpose. All it
requires is a statistical bias. Gravity has no goal, and no purpose. It
has no mind but it has a very profound effect on the trajectory of a moving
object.

> conveying something that is "designed to occur."

However, in real life, this is false. There are many things which are not
random, but were not designed to occur. Gravity, electromagnetism, the
weak and strong forces, wind, precipitation, heat flows, etc, etc. (if
you choose to claim these were all designed by God, then you have to accept
that evolution itself may also have been planned by God).

> This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent,
undirected, unguided, and mindless.

Once more, you have it wrong. Unintelligent et al are merely describing
that the processes are automatic, and don't require any deliberate action
to occur. There is nothing which requires an automatic process to be
random.

> Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random
> mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.

As explained to you multiple times, there is no such contradiction. Non
random selection happens in conjunction with randomly occurring mutations.
Your assertion of "illogical" has no basis.

>
> Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms
> accepted to describe effects or diversity,

Terms used to describe things are irrelevant to how they work.



> which are pro-teleology concepts.


You are assuming things not in evidence. Order can be produced by non
teleological processes as well. You are asserting, without support that
order must always be produced by teleological causes. Either offer
evidence of this, or admit your error.

If you want evidence supporting my statement, I offer the formation of a
thunderstorm from heat and unstable air.

> In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random
> contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa);

There is no logical reason those must contradict each other. Random can
happen in conjunction with non random, as can easily be seen with gambling
machines. Non random does not contradict mindless, unguided, etc, as
they often go together. Again as an example, I offer mindless, unguided
gravity providing non random direction to ballistic objects.

> and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and
> unintelligent contradicts organization and order.

And again, reality contradicts your ignorance. Organization and order
can, and does spontaneously come out of a combination of random, and
unguided (but non random) causes.

> Thus Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I
> call the same "contrary-fusion" or confusion.

Of course, that is a silly, and ignorant opinion. The word confusion does
not derive that way, and you are wrong about the concepts being contrary.

>
> -SUB-CONCLUSION-
>
> In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is
> antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus
> said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.

This "sub conclusion" is just an assumption, and does not follow from any
facts, or have any logical connections.

>
> -ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-
>
> -OBJECTION-
>
> Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random
> are not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or
> anti-teleological meaning.
>

Not just scientifically, but in general usage as well.

> -ANSWER-
>
> The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings,
> however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms),
> do indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per
> their service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs).

That is your false assumption, not reality.

> All the concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid
meaning.

But mixing the meanings in different contexts is misleading and dishonest.

> The meanings I convey are nonetheless valid.

Within a very narrow context. Out of that context, they are not valid.

> To say otherwise denies a basic premise (presence of antonyms conveys
contradiction).

Your "basic premise" is an example of special pleading. You are asking
for everyone to ignore context so that your invalid meanings be accepted
out of their proper context.

>
> -OBJECTION-
>
> Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed
> known to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme
> becomes logical automatically.

No one is saying that. The proposed cause and effect of evolution stand
on their own.

That material exists is known. That mater has properties is known. That
there are particular physical laws that affect matter is also known. If
something is observed to happen, it must be possible to happen.
Therefore, if you are arguing that something that happens is illogical,
there must be something wrong with your " logic". That does not mean
whatever explanation one devises automatically becomes logical. Thunder
is a real phenomenon. If I say that by my logic, thunder can't happen,
then obviously, my "logic" is flawed. If you explain thunder as clouds
bumping their heads, that does not make your explanation logical, or my
refusal to accept thunder to be correct either.

What everyone is saying, is that evolution and natural selection exist, and
are verified to exist. Therefore your assertion they are illogical is
wrong. The explanations for evolution and natural selections, even if
they later turn out to be wrong, are logical. If they were not logical,
the phenomena of evolution and natural selection still exist, and your
denial does not equal "logic".

>
> -ANSWER-
>
> The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of
> the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.

Except no one is presuming such a thing. You are attacking a strawman.

> Therefore the causation proposal cannot and does not exist in the wild.

Now you are using "non sequitur". The cause of evolution can and does
exist in the wild, even if the description of it should be flawed.
Denying evolution does not mean the effect goes away.

> We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring in the wild among species.

You turn a blind eye from what really happens. That is your failing, not
a problem for reality.

> Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of Darwinists.

Good example of magical thinking. If you believe hard enough, reality
bends to your will. This is cute when a 5 year old does it. Less so
when seen in a supposed adult.

>
> -MASTER CONCLUSION-
>
> The inclusion of the concept of "non-random" within the Darwinian
> episteme serves one purpose: to make the cause-and-effect scheme appear
> logical, or save the scheme from appearing illogical.

The mechanism of evolution is logical, and experimentally sound. It has
been observed to happen in the wild, and under close observation in a lab.
Selection is called non random for the simple reason that it is non
random. The theory needs no saving from the willfully blind.

> Since natural selection is the last or final cause that handles species
the concept of non-random becomes a logical necessity for the production of
organized or ordered effects.

Non random selection is an observation. If there were no such
observation, evolution would have been abandoned long ago. Unlike
cherished religious beliefs, scientific theories are understood to be
always on the cusp of refutation. A theory that survives for a long time
had had many chances to be abandoned. Evolution is no different.

> But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly non-teleological or
anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological
appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings
remain intact.

Ray, science is not "anti teleology". There just is no reason to assume
it if not warranted. Nothing in the study of biology indicates there is a
predetermined goal to evolution. This idea of a goal of evolution is one
of the most common misconceptions people have about evolution. If there
were any evidence of teleology in evolution, it would have been jumped on
years ago! People, including scientists would love to believe there is a
purpose and a goal to evolution. It fits a very basic need in human
psychology. The fact remains that the evidence does not offer any
support to that idea.

DJT

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[John Harshman]

Well, that's it, then. I'll contact the Society for the Study of
Evolution and the editors of the journal Evolution. We'll all be closing
down as soon as we can make the arrangements.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Damn. We all knew it was inevitable. Our lives are ruined. We must
delete Private Circuits from computers and learn to live in a
Post-Darwinist world where Paley is ascendant. I kinda wish God hadn't
hidden himself from my hardened atheist heart. I shall look to this
chart of Botticelli's as a roadmap for my eternal resting place (abandon
all hope ye who enter here):

http://www.worldofdante.org/dantemap_interactive.html


--
*Hemidactylus*- Hey, let's be careful out there (HSB):
http://siteinspector.comodo.com/
http://csi.websense.com/
http://safeweb.norton.com/
http://www.virustotal.com/en/#url

[deadrat]

On 6/22/13 10:12 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/22/13 5:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
>> cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
>> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>
>> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
>> causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
>> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>
>> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically
>> and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent
>> material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and
>> his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial
>> causation operating in the wild.
>>
>> -LOGIC-
>>
>> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
>> latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected,
>> unintelligent and non-random.
>>

>> The *concept* of non-random is teleological; <snip/>

Simple counterexamples abound. The pattern of radioactive decay is
certainly nonrandom as it follows a Poisson distribution. But there is
no identifiable purpose to the particular distribution for a given
unstable element.

But pointing out mistaken ideas in this argument is beside the point.
The principles of modern biology do not rest on abstract semantics, and
they cannot be refuted by examining the meanings of technical terms in
the hope of finding abstract antinomies.

[Rolf Aalberg]

Dammit! This morning I woke up with a new idea: Recommend Ray that he
find a forum dedicated to languages, linguistics, semantics,
pragmatics, discourse analysis, stylistics, semiotics and such so that
he might learn to communicate without ambiguity, but now he's let the
cat out of the bag I realize we are doomed, our lives are from now on:
MISERABLE, as Ray promised they would be!

I salute Ray: You have won!

[J. J. Lodder]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip words]

Scientific theories cannot be refuted.
They can only be superseded by better theories.

Words are not scientific theories,

Jan

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent

> cause(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized

> complexityand order seen in diversity.

Ray, you keep using "diversity" in this absurd way. "Diversity" is
not a recognized short-hand for the _the diversity of life seen in
the biosphere_. You've been corrected on this point by multiple
people. You will not find any glossary entry in any biology or
ecology book that defines "diversity" in the way you seem to
want to use it.

Your stubborn use of common words with these special meanings that
are unique to you really hurts your cause. It is especially absurd
when you toss it in to a claim that something was common understanding.
It's hard to have a common understanding based on a word usage that
is essentially unique to Ray Martinez.

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
> cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
> causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity
> and order seen in diversity.
>
> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically
> and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent
> material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his
> successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation
> operating in the wild.

Have you ever considered having a professional editor look at your
book? They might have something interesting to say about the above
construction. ??? diametrically ???

I understand your assertion about "mutually exclusive". I disagree
but I understand what you are claiming. But what more are you
saying with the added bit about "contradict diametrically"?
Really. It's gibberish.

And then you make a personal statement about what you don't
accept followed by a clearly false statement about what others
accept. It's clearly false in that there are plenty of people
who believe that evolution proceeds in the Darwinian manner
by mindless laws of chemistry and physics but that their
God occasionally takes a hand and nudges things along. You
know these people exist but you make the direct claim that
people either believe there's never any supernatural intervention
or there's always supernatural intervention. How can you honestly
make such a claim? I don't happen to think you're dishonest so I'm
left with the alternative that you just don't understand what the
words you're writing really mean.

You are not going to believe me but maybe you would believe
a professional editor who was not as partisan about the argument
you are making.

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 1:56:25 AM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause >(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and >order seen in diversity.
>

> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes (>Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and order >seen in diversity.
>
>

Not quite, it is more a case that adding teleology to the descriptions of the ToE does not add anything testable to the empirical content of the theory. If we find a new species like this one here

http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/050/857/i02/02a_chondrocladia_lyra.jpg

and want to describe, classify and understand it, atheists and theists - in the absence of any direct access to the information of what god had planned for it - are pretty much forced to rely on material theories. This includes the ToE, it leads us e.g. to testable short range theories like:
This new species seems related to sponges tat we know already
These sponges are typically suspension feeders.
Therefore this thing is also likely to be a suspension feeder, so lets search for how it filters microscopic organisms from the surrounding water through <under this assumption carry out tests, look for the tell tale signs of their aquiferous system>
As a result of this testing, discover the velcro-like hooks this sponge employs to capture even larger organisms than most sponges

Success - something new was learned that we did not know before, and to whose discovery the scientific reasoning process leasd us. teleology did not enter into this and was not needed.

As long as the evolutionary framework proves successful like this, that is generates new theories that can be tested and allows us to find out new stuff, it will be used, by scientists of all belief systems, atheists and theists alike

The only thing that would change this, really, is if theists could develop theories like this:
We know from an independent source (Bible, Upanishads, meditation whatever..)that lyre sponges are intended by God to serve one day for function X (say, provide a cure for asthma in humans)
We should therefore expect its biochemistry to contain a compound that effectively treats asthma in humans
<time of carrying out tests on various compounds found in lyre sponges
Sucess: a new compound was found...

But this is not something any religion has so far been able to pull off. So in the absence of such a teleological theory tat adds new empirical content, everybody describes the biological realm non-teleologically.

Theists can then as a question of metaphysics interpret these laws, patterns and relations as "ultimately" goal oriented and driven by a mind, atheists can use the exact same laws and relations without interpreting them this way

>
> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are >mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or >natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not >accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>

You continue to confuse philosophical interpretations of a theory with the theory itself. The philosophical interpretation of the ToE by an atheist may well be diametrically opposed to that of a theist, but that says little about the theory itself

What Darwin and his successors found is that teleological constructs do not generate testable short term predictions in addition to the ones the ToE generates without them, so they are not useful for the business of dong science. If you are in another business, say the "ultimate grounds of reality", different rules may apply.

>
> -LOGIC-
>

>
> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the latter >component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and >non-random.
>
>
>
> The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something that is >"designed to occur."

No it doesn't. That is your own unsupported claim. As long as I can predict the outcome of a process, it is non-random, whether designed or not.

> This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent, undirected, >unguided, and mindless. Non-random also contradicts the random or chance >nature of random mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation >scheme is illogical.

Pretty glaring non-sequitur even if one were to accept for the sake of the argument that there terms contradict each other. There is no reason to belief, and lots of reasons to doubt, that terms that are mutually exclusive can;t form part of a causal relation.

My love for someone can cause me to hate someone else.
Chemotherapy is deadly (for cancers) and yet it can cause humans to continue living. Indeed, most drugs are poisonous, also for humans, and yet cure them (in right doses)

A carefully planned explosion, by an intelligently designed bomb, can cause random chaos and destruction.

In short, if two terms are contradictory or antonymic is a semantic relation only, it says something about the way our language is organised. Whether or not two things are in a causal relation by contrasts is not an issue of language, but of reality. The two issues have no connection with each other

>
> Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms >accepted to describe effects or diversity, which are pro-teleology concepts. >In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa);

Yup, trivially

> non-random contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa);

Nope, an unsupported assertion on your side - unless you want as a question of metaphysics label _all_ natural processes as guided, and then there is no difference between physics and the ToE, and you get theistic evolution.

>and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and >unintelligent contradicts organization and order. Thus Darwinists have fused >contrary or contradictory concepts together. I call the same "contrary-fusion" >or confusion.
>

>
> -SUB-CONCLUSION-
>
>

> In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic >or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, >in fact, illogical and false.

As before, there is no reason why things described by semantically antonymic concepts should not be in a causal relation.

Second, your use of "logical" here is not the technical sense of logic and theory of science, but simply an expression for "counter-intuitive - but if it is nothing else but that, the inference from "it is illogical" to "it is false" is in itself fallacious.

> -ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-
>
> -OBJECTION-

>
> Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random are >not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or >anti->teleological meaning.

Yup, true

>
> -ANSWER-
>
>
> The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings, >however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms), do >indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per their >service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs). All the >concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid meaning. The >meanings I convey are nonetheless valid. To say otherwise denies a basic >premise (presence of antonyms conveys contradiction).

What you try (and fail) to do above is to construct a general justification for strawman arguments. fascinating. Yes, words can have multiple legitimate meanings. But that does of course not mean that I can therefore chose every such meaning interchangeably, for any purpose. Quite on the contrary, if I want to criticise a theory or someone opinion, I have to first establish what specific meaning that theory uses, or what that person intended to say.

Otherwise, I simply attack a strawman of my own making.
simple analogy:
"Jerusalem" has several meanings. It can mean the city in Israel, or it can mean a town in Ohio.
Now, if I tried to show an inconsistency on the bible like this:
It says in Acts 1:12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city

and argue that Jerusalem, being in Ohio, is more than a day's walk from the mount of Olives, the bible therefore wrong

my criticism woudl of course be pretty stupid. That the Ohio meaning is just as legitimate as the Israel meaning notwithstanding.

Your "criticism" of the ToE is just as stupid, replacing terms which have a very specific meaning in science with another that may in other contexts be legitimate or valid, but just not what the scientific theory says.

>
>
> -OBJECTION-
>

>
> Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed known >to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme becomes logical >automatically.
>

Well, bit ambiguous phrasing. If something is known to exist, it can't be illogical, in the technical sense of "logic". That's because in logic, something that is contradictory is false in all models, so finding even one where it is true (like reality)disproves the claim that it is illogical.

> -ANSWER-


>
> The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of the >evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme. Therefore the causation proposal cannot >and does not exist in the wild.

That is simply question begging. Once it has been demonstrated that unguided processes can cause order, this alone proves that such a thing can exist, in th fieeld and everywhere else too. You've been given numerous examples from fields outside biology.

> We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring >in the wild among species.

quite possibly. Jeremiah 5:21 applies. yet wilful blindness on your side is not going to alter reality

>Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of >Darwinists.
>

> -MASTER CONCLUSION-
>

> The inclusion of the concept of "non-random" within the Darwinian episteme >serves one purpose: to make the cause-and-effect scheme appear logical, or >save the scheme from appearing illogical.

Nope, it just expresses a simple fact about the nature of the concept of NS - that is that it is based on causal, deterministic and hence predictable interactions.

"Darwinists" would in principle be just as happy had we found that all of evolution is driven by random processes, as e.g. a strict neutral theory would have had. That's just a question of how nature works.

Since your informal use of "logical" is sicenitfically irrelevant, nobody would care if it appears counter-intuitive to you - leaving aside the fact that there is nothing illogical, even in your wide sense, about antonyms being in a causal relation.

>Since natural selection is the last or final cause that handles species the >concept of non-random becomes a logical necessity for the production of >organized or ordered effects.

no, just a factual necessity, just like "having a memory" is a factual, not a logical necessity for the ability to learn things. Without NS, changes would not accumulate, that's all.

>But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly >non-teleological or >anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological >appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings remain >intact.
>

Word salad

[John Harshman]

On 6/22/13 10:26 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/22/13 10:12 PM, John Harshman wrote:

Need I point out that I didn't write anything below?

[deadrat]

On 6/23/13 9:21 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/22/13 10:26 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/22/13 10:12 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Need I point out that I didn't write anything below?

No, you needn't, but you did anyway, didn't you? As if anyone mistook
my error in posting sequence to refer to anything but Ray's nonsense.

[Mark Buchanan]

On 6/22/2013 8:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

< snip irrelevant argument >

>
> Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>

Where's the evidence Ray?

If this is an excerpt from your promised book please cancel my order.

Mark

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/22/13 5:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
> cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
> complexity and order seen in diversity.

Technically, design is a process, while Victorian Creationism posited
sudden creation. So Victorian Creationism proposed creation but not design.

> [...]

> The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something
> that is "designed to occur."

Sorry, that is just plain wrong. Name any naturalistic phenomenon --
from meteorology, astronomy, chemistry, whatever -- and you will find
non-randomness therein.

And because your statement is an essential premise, your conclusions are
invalidated by its falsehood.


> [...]

> -OBJECTION-
>
> Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed known to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme becomes logical automatically.
>
> -ANSWER-
>
> The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme. Therefore the causation proposal cannot and does not exist in the wild. We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring in the wild among species. Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of Darwinists.

In other words, because we see it but you can ignore it, it does not
exist. Does that really sound logical to you?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Roger Shrubber]

deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/22/13 5:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>>> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
>>> cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
>>> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>>
>>> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
>>> causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
>>> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>>
>>> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically
>>> and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent
>>> material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and
>>> his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial
>>> causation operating in the wild.
>>>
>>> -LOGIC-
>>>
>>> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
>>> latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected,
>>> unintelligent and non-random.
>>>
>>> The *concept* of non-random is teleological; <snip/>
>
> Simple counterexamples abound. The pattern of radioactive decay is
> certainly nonrandom as it follows a Poisson distribution. But there is
> no identifiable purpose to the particular distribution for a given
> unstable element.

It's critical to be clear. The pattern that emerges from many
radioactive decay events is non-random in that it follows a
Poisson distribution but individual decay events are about
as random as we get. This is a frequently reproduced characteristic
of random things. Individually events are random. Integrated over
many events they fit an ordered pattern that is non-random.
This is simply a mathematical consequence. Any suggestion
that randomness does not/cannot/should not lead to order
is ignorant of integration.

[deadrat]

On 6/23/13 12:13 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/22/13 5:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>>> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
>>>> cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
>>>> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>>>
>>>> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
>>>> causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
>>>> complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>>>
>>>> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically
>>>> and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent
>>>> material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and
>>>> his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial
>>>> causation operating in the wild.
>>>>
>>>> -LOGIC-
>>>>
>>>> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
>>>> latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected,
>>>> unintelligent and non-random.
>>>>
>>>> The *concept* of non-random is teleological; <snip/>
>>
>> Simple counterexamples abound. The pattern of radioactive decay is
>> certainly nonrandom as it follows a Poisson distribution. But there is
>> no identifiable purpose to the particular distribution for a given
>> unstable element.
>
> It's critical to be clear.

Well, not that critical in this case.

> The pattern that emerges from many
> radioactive decay events is non-random in that it follows a
> Poisson distribution but individual decay events are about
> as random as we get.

Yes, which is why I said "pattern." Ray's claim is that the "*concept
of non-random is teleological," so I provided an example that fits the
concept but isn't teleological.

> This is a frequently reproduced characteristic
> of random things. Individually events are random. Integrated over
> many events they fit an ordered pattern that is non-random.

"Aggregated" is better here.

> This is simply a mathematical consequence.
> Any suggestion
> that randomness does not/cannot/should not lead to order
> is ignorant of integration.

Ray's suggestion is both different from your rephrasing and stronger.
He's suggesting that non-randomness is indicative of purpose.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:uemdnRZOIYMxsVrM...@giganews.com...

How do you define "order" here?

[hersheyh]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:56:25 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>
> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>
> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>
>
>
> -LOGIC-
>
>
>
> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.
>

The *former* (random mutation) is "mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and random" *with
respect to need*. Mutation, as any chemical process, follows rules related to the types and frequency
of changes. The *latter* (natural selection), is *mostly mindless* (one could consider that prey-predator environmental events sometimes involve the minds of both when the predator mentally recognizes the prey and the prey recognizes danger), is *guided* by some environmental condition, is *directed* by some environmental condition, and is, as you point out "non-random". It is unintelligent only to the extent that variation in intelligence is not being selected for So, the only one of your descriptors of natural selection (non-random) is correct.

>
> The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something that is "designed to occur." This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent, undirected, unguided, and mindless. Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.
>

The concept of "random" in the sense of mutation implies an inability to predict change for a specific individual site. One can, however, predict the rate of mutation for a *population* of sites quite well. Thus the opposite of random in this sense is the ability to predict a result for a specific site each and every time. That is, the consequence is inevitable or universal. For example, if you lower the temperature of almost pure water below freezing at atmospheric pressure it will inevitably turn to ice. That does not mean that ice formation is "teleologically determined".

>
> Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms accepted to describe effects or diversity, which are pro-teleology concepts. In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa); and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent contradicts organization and order. Thus Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I call the same "contrary-fusion" or confusion.

Those are word games using rather strange and misleading verbiage that assumes your initial categorizations and definitions are correct. They aren't.

That said, it is quite true that the process of mutation produces genetic variance. And natural selection reduces that variance to the extent that said change is locally useful or not on the metric of reproductive success.

>
> -SUB-CONCLUSION-
>
>
>
> In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.
>

So your logic tells you that it is impossible for one process to produce variation and another process to reduce the variation produced? That is like saying that it is impossible for one process to make something more acidic and a different process to reduce that acidity.

>
> -ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-
>
>
>
> -OBJECTION-
>
>
>
> Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random are not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or anti-teleological meaning.
>
>
>
> -ANSWER-
>
>
>
> The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings, however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms), do indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per their service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs). All the concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid meaning. The meanings I convey are nonetheless valid. To say otherwise denies a basic premise (presence of antonyms conveys contradiction).
>

Valid but irrelevant.

[Richard Clayton]

You can't PROVE magic invisible angels aren't doing it, therefore
randomness ( = atheist science) is falsified and Watchmaker (Gene Scott
= God = Gene Scott) remains correct and earns the right to explain
everything ever.

If the despair and mass suicides among those evil atheist scientists ( =
99.9% of them) who believe in randomness ( = blinding penalty) don't
completely obliterate the world's science and technology industry, I
look forward to seeing the advances made by the new supernaturalistic
science paradigm ( = throw out all that worthless junk developed since
the late 1600s and go back to the Golden Age of Science, the
pre-Enlightenment).

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling

[Dana Tweedy]

When you have been dealing with Ray as long as I have, you will see that
those two are not necessarily exclusive. I feel that Ray is both dishonest
and doesn't know what words mean.

>
> You are not going to believe me but maybe you would believe
> a professional editor who was not as partisan about the argument
> you are making.

A professional editor is an excellent suggestion, however if past
performance is any guide, Ray would quickly conclude that editor to be an
atheist and a Darwinist the first time the editor offered a correction to
one of Ray's many grammatical and factual errors.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <d3b2e3bf-1bd6-4cd6...@googlegroups.com>,

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 1:56:25 AM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause
> > >(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and
> > >order seen in diversity.
> >
>
> > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
> > causes (>Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
> > complexity and order >seen in diversity.
> >
> >
>
> Not quite, it is more a case that adding teleology to the descriptions of the
> ToE does not add anything testable to the empirical content of the theory

....

> >But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly >non-teleological or
> >>anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological
> >>appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings
> >remain >intact.
> >
> Word salad

Word salad indeed. Ray plays transparent shell games with words,
confusing no one but himself, and calls it "logic".

[Bob Berger]

In article <uemdnRZOIYMxsVrM...@giganews.com>, Roger Shrubber
says...

And that could get Ray in all sorts of trouble with the any of a number of civil
rights groups. :-)

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:29:25 AM UTC+7, Bob Berger wrote:

>
> And that could get Ray in all sorts of trouble with the any of a number of civil
> rights groups. :-)

I understand he's already in trouble with "Amalekites for Justice."

[Walter Bushell]

In article <uemdnRZOIYMxsVrM...@giganews.com>,

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It's critical to be clear. The pattern that emerges from many
> radioactive decay events is non-random in that it follows a
> Poisson distribution but individual decay events are about
> as random as we get. This is a frequently reproduced characteristic
> of random things. Individually events are random. Integrated over
> many events they fit an ordered pattern that is non-random.
> This is simply a mathematical consequence. Any suggestion
> that randomness does not/cannot/should not lead to order
> is ignorant of integration.

Decay of small quantities of Bismuth can look quite random from our
POV. For a thought experiment (only please!):

If a device were to be placed in the Ellipse in Washington DC, to
trigger a nuclear device with a 50% chance of going off with a bismuth
agent triggering it if sent particles into a detector in a certain
time period, the results would have major implications.

Likewise random mutations may have and almost certainly affected the
course of evolution on Earth, leading one lineage or another to
success. (Of course, success in evolutionary terms is always
temporary.)

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Ray Martinez]

I'm answering Roger because he is definitely a somebody in the Evolution v. Creation debate, which is to say that if a nobody in the debate had written the above reply I would completely ignore based on the inexcusable ignorance seen.

Diversity was simply used to mean living things, past and present. The goal of prose is to use the least amount of words. So instead of writing "living things, past and present" I chose the word "diversity."

Now we all are going to have to endure Roger digging in his heels.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

That would certainly falsify a certain Stanford Ph.Ds refutation of evolution.

Ray

[John Stockwell]

No. That's not it. The Paley approach was predicated on the notion of Natural
Theology, which is to say that what is seen in Nature is the result of
action by the Divine. Hence, the issue was to identify those things that
are only ascribable to the Designer.

The view is "entity oriented", much as one of the versions of the Cosmological
Argument holds that there is a chain of entities that lead back by cause
and effect to God.

Yet, for more than 200 years, science had been developing in the direction
of not considering "entities" but considering processes.

Darwin brought this thinking to biology by proposing a process by which species
originated.

The rest is history, and we are left with the occasional individual such as
Ray who cannot cope with giving up entities, and most defend entity oriented
notions.

Philosophically speaking, science does not make huge pronouncements about the
ontology, only enough to create the notion of natural law, as our ability to
observe and categorize regular behavior in the universe. Science is much
stronger on epistemology, in that we work within a restricted realm of apprehensibility, comprehensibility, and communicability for both observations
and for theoretical notions. We use theories as standins for ontology
that we don't have in hand. Science has been doing that for some time before
Darwin. Darwin merely brought this approach to biology.

We could say that the pre-science culture used hypothetical entities as standins for ontology that they did not have in hand.

-John

[John Harshman]

I don't understand who you're talking to or what you mean by it.

[Dana Tweedy]

It might, if there were any such thing. Mr. Scott, offering an
unsupported religious opinion did refute a scientific theory. Only
evidence can refute a scientific theory.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/25/13 2:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:39:17 AM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
>>
>>> cause(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
>>
>>> complexityand order seen in diversity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray, you keep using "diversity" in this absurd way. "Diversity" is
>>
>> not a recognized short-hand for the _the diversity of life seen in
>>
>> the biosphere_. You've been corrected on this point by multiple
>>
>> people. You will not find any glossary entry in any biology or
>>
>> ecology book that defines "diversity" in the way you seem to
>>
>> want to use it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your stubborn use of common words with these special meanings that
>>
>> are unique to you really hurts your cause. It is especially absurd
>>
>> when you toss it in to a claim that something was common understanding.
>>
>> It's hard to have a common understanding based on a word usage that
>>
>> is essentially unique to Ray Martinez.
>
> I'm answering Roger because he is definitely a somebody in the Evolution v. Creation debate, which is to say that if a nobody in the debate had written the above reply I would completely ignore based on the inexcusable ignorance seen.

Ray, Roger was kind enough to reply, despite your own ignorance. I
also notice you have not listened to Rogers very good advice above.
You keep using words you don't know, and don't understand. Finding an
editor would help you immensely.

>
> Diversity was simply used to mean living things, past and present.

That's not what the word "diversity" means, Ray. Hint 'diversity' comes
from the root "diverse".

> The goal of prose is to use the least amount of words.

The goal of prose is to communicate. Using the least amount of words,
especially words you don't understand, doesn't foster communications.

> So instead of writing "living things, past and present" I chose the word "diversity."

Which does not imply "living things past and present". Diversity means
the span of differences between living things. A better short term for
"living things past and present" would be "Life".

>
> Now we all are going to have to endure Roger digging in his heels.

Worse, we are all going to have to "endure" Ray making up his own
definitions, refusing to admit his errors, and spouting off strange
assumptions as if they were correct.


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/25/13 1:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> The goal of prose is to use the least amount of words.

Now we know why your magnum opus remains unwritten. You have worked,
successfully, to get it down to zero words. Congratulations!

[Ray Martinez]

Ask Dana Tweedy, he not only understands, but fears greatly.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message news:kqdelr$2qe$1...@dont-email.me...

Is conduct what concerns you?

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:50:37 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 6:56:25 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -LOGIC-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something that is "designed to occur." This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent, undirected, unguided, and mindless. Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms accepted to describe effects or diversity, which are pro-teleology concepts. In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa); and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent contradicts organization and order. Thus Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I call the same "contrary-fusion" or confusion.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -SUB-CONCLUSION-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -OBJECTION-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random are not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or anti-teleological meaning.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -ANSWER-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings, however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms), do indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per their service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs). All the concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid meaning. The meanings I convey are nonetheless valid. To say otherwise denies a basic premise (presence of antonyms conveys contradiction).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -OBJECTION-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed known to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme becomes logical automatically.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -ANSWER-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme. Therefore the causation proposal cannot and does not exist in the wild. We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring in the wild among species. Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of Darwinists.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -MASTER CONCLUSION-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The inclusion of the concept of "non-random" within the Darwinian episteme serves one purpose: to make the cause-and-effect scheme appear logical, or save the scheme from appearing illogical. Since natural selection is the last or final cause that handles species the concept of non-random becomes a logical necessity for the production of organized or ordered effects. But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly non-teleological or anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings remain intact.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>
>
>
> No. That's not it.

What does "it" refer to....what are you talking about?

> The Paley approach was predicated on the notion of Natural
>
> Theology, which is to say that what is seen in Nature is the result of
>
> action by the Divine.

Yes, I agree.

> Hence, the issue was to identify those things that
>
> are only ascribable to the Designer.

Yes, like species (the watch) but not the stone.

> The view is "entity oriented", much as one of the versions of the Cosmological
>
> Argument holds that there is a chain of entities that lead back by cause
>
> and effect to God.
>
>
>
> Yet, for more than 200 years, science had been developing in the direction
>
> of not considering "entities" but considering processes.
>
>
>
> Darwin brought this thinking to biology by proposing a process by which species
>
> originated.
>
>
>
> The rest is history, and we are left with the occasional individual such as
>
> Ray who cannot cope with giving up entities, and most defend entity oriented
>
> notions.
>
>
>
> Philosophically speaking, science does not make huge pronouncements about the
>
> ontology, only enough to create the notion of natural law, as our ability to
>
> observe and categorize regular behavior in the universe. Science is much
>
> stronger on epistemology, in that we work within a restricted realm of apprehensibility, comprehensibility, and communicability for both observations
>
> and for theoretical notions. We use theories as standins for ontology
>
> that we don't have in hand. Science has been doing that for some time before
>
> Darwin. Darwin merely brought this approach to biology.
>
>
>
> We could say that the pre-science culture used hypothetical entities as standins for ontology that they did not have in hand.
>
>
>
> -John

Relevance....point?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:07:02 AM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
>
> > cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
>
> > complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
>
> > causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity
>
> > and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> > Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically
>
> > and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent
>
> > material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his
>
> > successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation
>
> > operating in the wild.
>
>
>

> Have you ever considered having a professional editor look at your
>
> book? They might have something interesting to say about the above
>
> construction. ??? diametrically ???

All this says is that "diametrically" isn't in your vocabulary.

> I understand your assertion about "mutually exclusive". I disagree
>
> but I understand what you are claiming. But what more are you
>
> saying with the added bit about "contradict diametrically"?
>
> Really. It's gibberish.

Either that is true or you don't understand.

> And then you make a personal statement about what you don't
>
> accept followed by a clearly false statement about what others
>
> accept.

Very sloppy, Roger. No *Darwinian* scientific authority accepts any adjectival term from the Victorian Creationism episteme as existing in nature.

Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):

BEGIN QUOTE
There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.
END QUOTE

> It's clearly false in that there are plenty of people
>
> who believe that evolution proceeds in the Darwinian manner
>
> by mindless laws of chemistry and physics but that their
>
> God occasionally takes a hand and nudges things along. You
>
> know these people exist but you make the direct claim that
>
> people either believe there's never any supernatural intervention
>
> or there's always supernatural intervention. How can you honestly
>
> make such a claim? I don't happen to think you're dishonest so I'm
>
> left with the alternative that you just don't understand what the
>
> words you're writing really mean.

First off, I didn't, in my refutation, "make the direct claim that people either believe there's never any supernatural intervention or there's always supernatural intervention" (RS).

I said: "....Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild." Now review the Mayr quote again.

I didn't address "theistic evolution." I conveyed the objective position of *Darwinism.*

> You are not going to believe me but maybe you would believe
>
> a professional editor who was not as partisan about the argument
>
> you are making.

The problem is on your end (ignorance or misunderstanding or both).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:51:45 PM UTC-7, hersheyh wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:56:25 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -LOGIC-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.
>
> >
>
> The *former* (random mutation) is "mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and random" *with
>
> respect to need*. Mutation, as any chemical process, follows rules related to the types and frequency
>
> of changes. The *latter* (natural selection), is *mostly mindless* (one could consider that prey-predator environmental events sometimes involve the minds of both when the predator mentally recognizes the prey and the prey recognizes danger), is *guided* by some environmental condition, is *directed* by some environmental condition, and is, as you point out "non-random". It is unintelligent only to the extent that variation in intelligence is not being selected for So, the only one of your descriptors of natural selection (non-random) is correct.
>

The following adjectives are found liberally in the publications of evo authorities: mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent. Collectively, these adjectives convey the claim of fact that natural selection is anti-teleological. Moreover your commentary, seen above, conveys stipulated meanings for each term. That said, what's the point, Howard?

> > The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something that is "designed to occur." This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent, undirected, unguided, and mindless. Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.
>
> >
>
> The concept of "random" in the sense of mutation implies an inability to predict change for a specific individual site. One can, however, predict the rate of mutation for a *population* of sites quite well. Thus the opposite of random in this sense is the ability to predict a result for a specific site each and every time. That is, the consequence is inevitable or universal. For example, if you lower the temperature of almost pure water below freezing at atmospheric pressure it will inevitably turn to ice. That does not mean that ice formation is "teleologically determined".
>

Review the top two paragraphs in my preliminary refutation.

>
> > Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms accepted to describe effects or diversity, which are pro-teleology concepts. In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa); and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent contradicts organization and order. Thus Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I call the same "contrary-fusion" or confusion.
>
>
>
> Those are word games using rather strange and misleading verbiage that assumes your initial categorizations and definitions are correct. They aren't.
>

Contentless denial.

I'm only obligated to say "they remain correct."

> That said, it is quite true that the process of mutation produces genetic variance. And natural selection reduces that variance to the extent that said change is locally useful or not on the metric of reproductive success.
>
> >
>
> > -SUB-CONCLUSION-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.
>
> >
>
> So your logic tells you that it is impossible for one process to produce variation and another process to reduce the variation produced? That is like saying that it is impossible for one process to make something more acidic and a different process to reduce that acidity.
>

Evasion through and through.

We all know what that means.

Ray

[John Stockwell]

> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.

Actually, this is not an episteme, but an ontological assumption, one which had been abandoned by the other sciences, with only Palian Natural Theology in biology as the remaining holdout in the sciences.

The episteme would be the desire only to find sufficiently pathological examples to support the assumption that the Divine is at work. The point was not to understand these phenomena, as these would be beyond understanding, if truly of Divine origin.

My point in my previous post was to point out that science is not Naturalism as you seek to portray it, but is rather an investigative program that is not about ultimate causes. So everything you write about Darwinism etc. is simply not accurate. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because many of us here are openly atheistic, that evolution is an atheistic subject. That would be the same as thinking that interior decorating is a gay topic, simply because gay people are in that line of work.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:
> > > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>

> Actually, this is not an episteme, but an ontological assumption....

An episteme conveys an epistemological assumption by which evidence is interpreted. The same equates to a restriction.

> ....one which had been abandoned by the other sciences, with only Palian Natural Theology in biology as the remaining holdout in the sciences.

>
>
>
> The episteme would be the desire only to find sufficiently pathological examples to support the assumption that the Divine is at work. The point was not to understand these phenomena, as these would be beyond understanding, if truly of Divine origin.
>
>
>
> My point in my previous post was to point out that science is not Naturalism as you seek to portray it, but is rather an investigative program that is not about ultimate causes.
>

Ridiculous.

> So everything you write about Darwinism etc. is simply not accurate. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because many of us here are openly atheistic, that evolution is an atheistic subject. That would be the same as thinking that interior decorating is a gay topic, simply because gay people are in that line of work.
>

Even more ridiculous.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

No, Ray, I don't fear it at all, much less "greatly". As I pointed
out, a religious opinion cannot possibly refute a scientific theory.
Only evidence can.

Do you have any evidence?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/25/13 8:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>>>
>>
>>> In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.
>>
>>>
>>
>> So your logic tells you that it is impossible for one process to produce variation and another process to reduce the variation produced? That is like saying that it is impossible for one process to make something more acidic and a different process to reduce that acidity.
>>
>
> Evasion through and through.

Where was there any evasion, Ray?

>
> We all know what that means.

Yes, that you are unable to address what Howard wrote, and are running
away.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/25/13 8:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:
>>>> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, this is not an episteme, but an ontological assumption....
>
> An episteme conveys an epistemological assumption by which evidence is interpreted. The same equates to a restriction.

Ray, you really need to learn what words mean before you start throwing
them around.

>
>> ....one which had been abandoned by the other sciences, with only Palian Natural Theology in biology as the remaining holdout in the sciences.
>>
>>
>>
>> The episteme would be the desire only to find sufficiently pathological examples to support the assumption that the Divine is at work. The point was not to understand these phenomena, as these would be beyond understanding, if truly of Divine origin.
>>
>>
>>
>> My point in my previous post was to point out that science is not Naturalism as you seek to portray it, but is rather an investigative program that is not about ultimate causes.
>>
>
> Ridiculous.

A "contentless denial" it would appear.....

>
>> So everything you write about Darwinism etc. is simply not accurate. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because many of us here are openly atheistic, that evolution is an atheistic subject. That would be the same as thinking that interior decorating is a gay topic, simply because gay people are in that line of work.
>>
>
> Even more ridiculous.

and even more contentless denial. Care to actually try to address what
was written?

DJT

[John Harshman]

I doubt that. But why don't you explain? Who is this Stanford PhD?

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/22/2013 8:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>

> The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are mutually exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>

Others have already commented on the specifics, but you're a "Big
Picture" guy, so I'll just offer this:

Does it make sense to you that a theory of biological processes can be
effectively countered by an argument that mentions no biology at all,
but instead rests entirely on the adjectives you choose to characterize
those processes?

[Mark Isaak]

I'm guessing Gene Scott. I still don't understand what Ray means, but
that is nothing remarkable.

[Rolf]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> skrev i melding
news:kqev74$14r$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/25/13 10:01 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/25/13 6:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:52:35 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/13 1:21 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:12:30 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's it, then. I'll contact the Society for the Study of
>>>>>> Evolution and the editors of the journal Evolution. We'll all be
>>>>>> closing down as soon as we can make the arrangements.
>>>>
>>>>> That would certainly falsify a certain Stanford Ph.Ds refutation of
>>>>> evolution.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand who you're talking to or what you mean by it.
>>>
>>> Ask Dana Tweedy, he not only understands, but fears greatly.
>>
>> I doubt that. But why don't you explain? Who is this Stanford PhD?
>
> I'm guessing Gene Scott. I still don't understand what Ray means, but
> that is nothing remarkable.
>

Remarkable would be if anyone did understand Ray.

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:38:36 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > > > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Actually, this is not an episteme, but an ontological assumption....
>
>
>
> An episteme conveys an epistemological assumption by which evidence is interpreted. The same equates to a restriction.

Sorry Ray, but ontology is ontology, and epistemology is epistemology.
O can influence E, but they aren't really interchangeable.

>
>
>
> > ....one which had been abandoned by the other sciences, with only Palian Natural Theology in biology as the remaining holdout in the sciences.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The episteme would be the desire only to find sufficiently pathological examples to support the assumption that the Divine is at work. The point was not to understand these phenomena, as these would be beyond understanding, if truly of Divine origin.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > My point in my previous post was to point out that science is not Naturalism as you seek to portray it, but is rather an investigative program that is not about ultimate causes.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ridiculous.

Not at all. The pre-science view of things was based on entity identification
Entity Z was caused by entity Y, which was caused by .... entity A, which was caused by God.

That was the chain of explanation in the view of Natural theology. This sort
of reasoning is absolutely useless in understanding the universe, and started
to be abandoned in the Middle ages with more with the identification of
"natural law" as the the primary mode of explanation. Biology was the
only holdout. Paley's work was the pinnacle of an obsolete system of knowledge
which is, good riddance on the dustbin of history.

>
>
>
> > So everything you write about Darwinism etc. is simply not accurate. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because many of us here are openly atheistic, that evolution is an atheistic subject. That would be the same as thinking that interior decorating is a gay topic, simply because gay people are in that line of work.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Even more ridiculous.

Not really. Just as you won't turn queer if you become a hair dresser or
an interior decorator, you won't turn into an atheist if you adopt the modern
notions of scientific method.

The point being there isn't any requirement of atheism in our modern scientific
worldview, but God has to either lead follow or get the hell out of the way.
For the past 200 years, he has been on the sidelines.

>
>
>
> Ray


(I'm way smarter than Gene Scott, but I don't get as much tail as he used to.)

-John

[Ray Martinez]

Those adjectives exist abundantly in the writings of evo scientists and scholars.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

His refutation of evolution says acceptance of naturalistic assumptions is a punishment from God for denying the design of nature; therefore if you and your evo colleagues were to accept any falsification of evolutionary theory the punishment theory would suffer falsification.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:58:10 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause
>
> > (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity
>
> > and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>

> Fine as a religious belief, but is untestable, and unfalsifiable.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
>
> > causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
>
> > complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>

> This has been directly observed to happen in numerous real life
>
> observations.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and
>
> > are mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
>
>

> Maybe, but the first was a religious belief, and is unsupported by any
>
> observations. It may safely be ignored as a scientific idea.

>
>
>
>
>
> > I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation
>
> > operating in the wild;
>
>
>

> That's ok. Reality does not require your approval.

>
>
>
>
>
> > and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or
>
> > immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>
>
>

> That's not exactly true. In fact it's what one might call a "lie".
>
> Scientists have long accepted that intelligent beings exist, even in
>
> different species than humans. Many scientists strongly believe in a
>
> supernatural being ( or more than one). However science has no way to
>
> detect, or determine the existence of any "immaterial causes", so out of
>
> practical necessity, scientists have chosen to study only material causes
>
> and effects. You may not agree with that, but the track record of
>
> success that science has had with this can't be gainsaid.

Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?

I am waiting....

> >
>
> > -LOGIC
>
>
>
>
>
> Hang onto your hats, and be ready for a trip to wacky land...logic need not
>
> apply.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
>
> > latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.
>
>
>

> More or less correct.

Why?

Why would anyone slightly contest the adjectival description of natural selection found abundantly in the writings of evo authorities?

> Non random in that natural selection applies a
>
> decidedly non random bias to the random mutations generated by copy errors,
>
> and substitutions in DNA replication. Mutations which confer some kind
>
> of reproductive advantage become statistically more likely to be conserved.
>
> Those that are fatal, or offer a disadvantage to reproduction become less
>
> conserved. Those that neither give advantage, or detriment may, or may
>
> not be retained.

Non-sequitur.

> >
>
> > The *concept* of non-random is teleological;
>
>
>

> Wrong. Non random does not require a goal, or a purpose.

Note asterisk emphasis in original claim of fact. Conceptually, non-random is understood to convey the opposite of random. The evo response completely ignores while imparting a stipulated meaning, as if said concept, within the context of the Darwinian episteme, can have an anti-teleological meaning. It cannot. Yet I've acknowledged the fact that certain stipulative meanings of the term, but not the concept, remain intact or valid (review last sentence in the refutation). This *particular* stipulation is, of course, invalid because it says the *concept* of non-random conveys the *concept* of random.


> All it
>
> requires is a statistical bias. Gravity has no goal, and no purpose. It
>
> has no mind but it has a very profound effect on the trajectory of a moving
>
> object.

Originally, gravity was conceived as a designed law by Newton. It has a clear goal and purpose.

> > conveying something that is "designed to occur."
>
>
>

> However, in real life, this is false. There are many things which are not
>
> random, but were not designed to occur. Gravity, electromagnetism, the
>
> weak and strong forces, wind, precipitation, heat flows, etc, etc. (if
>
> you choose to claim these were all designed by God, then you have to accept
>
> that evolution itself may also have been planned by God).

Metaphysically, Darwinian evolution (accepted evolution) says First Cause was an unknown material agent. Darwin officially retracted 1859:490 "breathed" (reference withheld) but allowed all editions of The Origin to retain the claim for various other motives and purposes.

> > This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent,
>
> undirected, unguided, and mindless.
>
>
>

> Once more, you have it wrong. Unintelligent et al are merely describing
>
> that the processes are automatic, and don't require any deliberate action
>
> to occur. There is nothing which requires an automatic process to be
>
> random.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random
>
> > mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.
>
>
>

> As explained to you multiple times, there is no such contradiction.

As explained an equal number of times said denial doesn't cause the self-evident contradiction to go away.

Said denial plainly supports the fact that Darwinists are deluded liars.

Random and non-random contradict. You're denying because admission equates to falsification of the Darwinian cause-and-effect scheme.

Ray


>
> Non random selection happens in conjunction with randomly occurring mutations.
>
> Your assertion of "illogical" has no basis.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms
>
> > accepted to describe effects or diversity,
>
>
>

> Terms used to describe things are irrelevant to how they work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > which are pro-teleology concepts.
>
>
>
>
>
> You are assuming things not in evidence. Order can be produced by non
>
> teleological processes as well. You are asserting, without support that
>
> order must always be produced by teleological causes. Either offer
>
> evidence of this, or admit your error.
>
>
>
> If you want evidence supporting my statement, I offer the formation of a
>
> thunderstorm from heat and unstable air.

>
>
>
>
>
> > In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random
>
> > contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa);
>
>
>
>
>

> There is no logical reason those must contradict each other. Random can
>
> happen in conjunction with non random, as can easily be seen with gambling
>
> machines. Non random does not contradict mindless, unguided, etc, as
>
> they often go together. Again as an example, I offer mindless, unguided
>
> gravity providing non random direction to ballistic objects.

>
>
>
>
>
> > and chance or random along with mindless, unguided, undirected and
>
> > unintelligent contradicts organization and order.
>
>
>

> And again, reality contradicts your ignorance. Organization and order
>
> can, and does spontaneously come out of a combination of random, and
>
> unguided (but non random) causes.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Thus Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I
>
> > call the same "contrary-fusion" or confusion.
>
>
>
>
>

> Of course, that is a silly, and ignorant opinion. The word confusion does
>
> not derive that way, and you are wrong about the concepts being contrary.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > -SUB-CONCLUSION-

>
> >
>
> > In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is
>
> > antonymic or contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus
>
> > said scheme is, in fact, illogical and false.
>
>
>

> This "sub conclusion" is just an assumption, and does not follow from any
>
> facts, or have any logical connections.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > -ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-
>
> >
>
> > -OBJECTION-
>
> >
>
> > Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random
>
> > are not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or
>
> > anti-teleological meaning.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

> Not just scientifically, but in general usage as well.

>
>
>
>
>
> > -ANSWER-
>
> >
>
> > The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings,
>
> > however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms),
>
> > do indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per
>
> > their service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs).
>
>
>

> That is your false assumption, not reality.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > All the concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid
>
> meaning.
>
>
>
>
>

> But mixing the meanings in different contexts is misleading and dishonest.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The meanings I convey are nonetheless valid.
>
>
>

> Within a very narrow context. Out of that context, they are not valid.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To say otherwise denies a basic premise (presence of antonyms conveys
>
> contradiction).
>
>
>

> Your "basic premise" is an example of special pleading. You are asking
>
> for everyone to ignore context so that your invalid meanings be accepted
>
> out of their proper context.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > -OBJECTION-
>
> >
>
> > Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed
>
> > known to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme
>
> > becomes logical automatically.
>
>
>
>
>

> No one is saying that. The proposed cause and effect of evolution stand
>
> on their own.
>
>
>
> That material exists is known. That mater has properties is known. That
>
> there are particular physical laws that affect matter is also known. If
>
> something is observed to happen, it must be possible to happen.
>
> Therefore, if you are arguing that something that happens is illogical,
>
> there must be something wrong with your " logic". That does not mean
>
> whatever explanation one devises automatically becomes logical. Thunder
>
> is a real phenomenon. If I say that by my logic, thunder can't happen,
>
> then obviously, my "logic" is flawed. If you explain thunder as clouds
>
> bumping their heads, that does not make your explanation logical, or my
>
> refusal to accept thunder to be correct either.
>
>
>
> What everyone is saying, is that evolution and natural selection exist, and
>
> are verified to exist. Therefore your assertion they are illogical is
>
> wrong. The explanations for evolution and natural selections, even if
>
> they later turn out to be wrong, are logical. If they were not logical,
>
> the phenomena of evolution and natural selection still exist, and your
>
> denial does not equal "logic".

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > -ANSWER-
>
> >
>
> > The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of
>
> > the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
>
>
>

> Except no one is presuming such a thing. You are attacking a strawman.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Therefore the causation proposal cannot and does not exist in the wild.
>
>
>

> Now you are using "non sequitur". The cause of evolution can and does
>
> exist in the wild, even if the description of it should be flawed.
>
> Denying evolution does not mean the effect goes away.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring in the wild among species.
>
>
>

> You turn a blind eye from what really happens. That is your failing, not
>
> a problem for reality.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of Darwinists.
>
>
>
>
>

> Good example of magical thinking. If you believe hard enough, reality
>
> bends to your will. This is cute when a 5 year old does it. Less so
>
> when seen in a supposed adult.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > -MASTER CONCLUSION-
>
> >
>
> > The inclusion of the concept of "non-random" within the Darwinian
>
> > episteme serves one purpose: to make the cause-and-effect scheme appear
>
> > logical, or save the scheme from appearing illogical.
>
>
>
>
>

> The mechanism of evolution is logical, and experimentally sound. It has
>
> been observed to happen in the wild, and under close observation in a lab.
>
> Selection is called non random for the simple reason that it is non
>
> random. The theory needs no saving from the willfully blind.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since natural selection is the last or final cause that handles species
>
> the concept of non-random becomes a logical necessity for the production of
>
> organized or ordered effects.
>
>
>

> Non random selection is an observation. If there were no such
>
> observation, evolution would have been abandoned long ago. Unlike
>
> cherished religious beliefs, scientific theories are understood to be
>
> always on the cusp of refutation. A theory that survives for a long time
>
> had had many chances to be abandoned. Evolution is no different.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly non-teleological or
>
> anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological
>
> appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings
>
> remain intact.
>
>
>

> Ray, science is not "anti teleology". There just is no reason to assume
>
> it if not warranted. Nothing in the study of biology indicates there is a
>
> predetermined goal to evolution. This idea of a goal of evolution is one
>
> of the most common misconceptions people have about evolution. If there
>
> were any evidence of teleology in evolution, it would have been jumped on
>
> years ago! People, including scientists would love to believe there is a
>
> purpose and a goal to evolution. It fits a very basic need in human
>
> psychology. The fact remains that the evidence does not offer any
>
> support to that idea.
>
>
>
> DJT
>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>
>I am waiting....

Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:03:15 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> > Does it make sense to you that a theory of biological processes can be

> > effectively countered by an argument that mentions no biology at all,

> > but instead rests entirely on the adjectives you choose to characterize

> > those processes?

> Those adjectives exist abundantly in the writings of evo scientists and scholars.

So what?? Prepositions and adverbs also exist abundantly in the writings of "evo scientists and scholars," but analysis of their grammar won't tell you whether their theory is correct. The theory of evolution is a great theory, but not one that can be effectively defended by the proper use of adjectives. For that, one needs to look at what happens in the biological world. And if you wanted to have a chance at "refuting Darwinism" you'd have to stop contemplating your linguistic navel and start looking, in the biological world, for evidence falsifying the theory of evolution. These word games just make you look silly. Grammar and antonymic adjective pairs tell you nothing about biological processes.

>
>
>
> Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, your claim above was that "Darwin and his successors do not accept

existence of Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild".

That is different from claiming that "any teleological concept" can be
detected to exist in nature.


>
> I am waiting....

Yes, and you already know the answer. There are several prominent
scientists who have strong religious beliefs, and believe that God, an
"immaterial cause" exists, and influences nature. Of course, they also
are aware that such is a religious belief, not a scientific concept.

"Authorities" don't call the tune for science, Ray, as you've been told
before. Science is a collective endeavor, and the word of one, or even
a dozen persons doesn't affect the course of the science. If you want
names, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, for three.

I also notice you haven't been able to address the matter of science
only being capable of dealing with "material causes".

>
>>>
>>
>>> -LOGIC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hang onto your hats, and be ready for a trip to wacky land...logic need not
>>
>> apply.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
>>
>>> latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.
>>
>>
>>
>> More or less correct.
>
> Why?

Why is it correct? Because natural processes do not possess a mind,
outside direction, or intelligence, and they are non random.

>
> Why would anyone slightly contest the adjectival description of natural selection found abundantly in the writings of evo authorities?

Why would anyone "slightly contest" the existence of natural selection
in the first place? There are plenty of wackos out there who would
contest such facts.

>
>> Non random in that natural selection applies a
>>
>> decidedly non random bias to the random mutations generated by copy errors,
>>
>> and substitutions in DNA replication. Mutations which confer some kind
>>
>> of reproductive advantage become statistically more likely to be conserved.
>>
>> Those that are fatal, or offer a disadvantage to reproduction become less
>>
>> conserved. Those that neither give advantage, or detriment may, or may
>>
>> not be retained.
>
> Non-sequitur.

why do you claim this does not follow from the premises? What I pointed
out is that the effect of natural selection is decidedly non random.
This is clearly explained above. What is causing your confusion?

>
>>>
>>
>>> The *concept* of non-random is teleological;
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Non random does not require a goal, or a purpose.
>
> Note asterisk emphasis in original claim of fact.

You can add whatever you want for emphasis, but it's still wrong. Non
random processes don't require a goal, or a purpose, which is what
teleological means.

> Conceptually, non-random is understood to convey the opposite of random.

Be that as it may, but neither "random" or "non random" mean "having a
goal. Your assumption that "non random" and "goal oriented" are the
same thing is demonstrably wrong.

>The evo response completely ignores while imparting a stipulated meaning,

Ray, pointing out your assumption is wrong is not "ignoring" it. The
"stipulated" meaning is the one that applies in this context.

> as if said concept, within the context of the Darwinian episteme, can have an anti-teleological meaning.

It has a NON teleological meaning in nearly every context. You can't
simply swap out meanings as if they were all interchangeable. No one
claims that random is "anti teleological". This appears to be another
occasion where you confuse "anti" and "non".


> It cannot.

Sure it can have such a meaning, but it's not what anyone here is
talking about. Like I said above, the word "random" as used by
scientists in this particular context, is NON teleological, not "anti
teleological".

Teleology is untestable, unfalsifiable, and not considered to be a
useful scientific idea.

> Yet I've acknowledged the fact that certain stipulative meanings of the term, but not the concept, remain intact or valid (review last sentence in the refutation).

While that may be very kind of you, what you choose to acknowledge is
entirely irrelevant to reality. The meaning of the term, as used by
scientists in the context of evolution, is not related to teleology, or
any other religious belief. Random in that particular concept means
"described by relation to probability". It does not mean "unguided",
"Unintelligent" or any other word you want to use to mean "not under the
direct influence of God".

> This *particular* stipulation is, of course, invalid because it says the *concept* of non-random conveys the *concept* of random.

No, Ray. The "concept" of non random in the way scientists use is
means "producing a particular observable effect". That effect, in the
case of gravity would be acceleration toward the center of mass. The
effect in the case of inertia would be "remaining in motion in a
straight line". In the case of natural selection, it would mean
"providing a bias toward reproductive success". None of the above
forces are considered to be "guided" but all are non random.

You are mistaking "random" to mean "without supernatural guidance". No
one else uses it that way.

>
>
>> All it
>>
>> requires is a statistical bias. Gravity has no goal, and no purpose. It
>>
>> has no mind but it has a very profound effect on the trajectory of a moving
>>
>> object.
>
> Originally, gravity was conceived as a designed law by Newton.

That was Newton's religious belief, but it didn't matter to the fact
that gravity is a natural law, without any observed supernatural
influence.

> It has a clear goal and purpose.

Gravity has no goal, and no purpose, as far as can be ascertained by
science. It is a property of matter to have an attraction to other
bodies. Gravity has a non random effect, but it's not known to have
any guidance.


If Isaac Newton wanted to believe that Gravity was designed by God, that
is his personal belief. Likewise, some scientists today have the
belief that Natural selection is how God designs living things. If you
say that Gravity is a "designed law", so be it. But then why isn't
natural selection also a "designed law"? Both exist. Both can be
observed in nature. Both provide a non random influence.

>
>> > conveying something that is "designed to occur."
>>
>>
>>
>> However, in real life, this is false. There are many things which are not
>>
>> random, but were not designed to occur. Gravity, electromagnetism, the
>>
>> weak and strong forces, wind, precipitation, heat flows, etc, etc. (if
>>
>> you choose to claim these were all designed by God, then you have to accept
>>
>> that evolution itself may also have been planned by God).
>
> Metaphysically, Darwinian evolution (accepted evolution) says First Cause was an unknown material agent.

Science doesn't say anything about a "first cause". Such things are
left to philosophers. Who's to say that "first cause" isn't God?

> Darwin officially retracted 1859:490 "breathed" (reference withheld)

Meaning you don't have a reference....

> but allowed all editions of The Origin to retain the claim for various other motives and purposes.

Darwin knew that science doesn't have anything to say about God, or
gods. If someone wants to interpret the origin of life, and it's later
evolution to God's power, nothing Darwin wrote, or thought, would stop
that person. There is just no way to scientifically establish such a
thing.

Darwin was a scientist, not a theologian. He wasn't interested in
proving, or disproving God's existence. He was interested in finding
out how life diversified, and continues to grow more diverse.

>
>
>> > This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent,
>>
>> undirected, unguided, and mindless.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once more, you have it wrong. Unintelligent et al are merely describing
>>
>> that the processes are automatic, and don't require any deliberate action
>>
>> to occur. There is nothing which requires an automatic process to be
>>
>> random.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, here would have been a good place
to back up your assertions that automatic processes need to be called

random.




>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random
>>
>>> mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.
>>
>>
>>
>> As explained to you multiple times, there is no such contradiction.
>
> As explained an equal number of times said denial doesn't cause the self-evident contradiction to go away.

There is no contradiction to "go away", Ray. I've explained to you why
there is no contradiction, and I've explained why you got it wrong.
Now you are just re-asserting your falsified assertions.

There is no contradiction between unguided and non random. The two
ideas are not in conflict, as guidance is irrelevant to randomness in
effect.

>
> Said denial plainly supports the fact that Darwinists are deluded liars.

Unlike you, Ray, I've explained clearly and patiently why your claim is
wrong. I'm not the one lying, and you are very much aware of this.
Calling me names doesn't make you right.


>
> Random and non-random contradict.

Of course they do, however non random and unguided do not. To that end,
you falsely define "random" to mean only "unguided". You falsely define
"non random" to mean only "directed by an intelligent being".

You falsely equivocate the meanings of "random" and "non random" to
manufacture a contradiction where one does not exist.


When you use false definitions, you can get anything to conflict.

> You're denying because admission equates to falsification of the Darwinian cause-and-effect scheme.

I'm saying you are wrong, for the simple reason that you are wrong.
The fact of natural selection does not depend on you playing word games,
and equivocating meanings.

The only way one can falsify evolution is through evidence. You
obviously have no evidence, so you are forced to use falsehoods.





>
> Ray

Apparently Ray's ADHD took over at this point.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, why do you imagine this to be a refutation of evolution? Nothing
stated by Mr. Scott would falsify the evidence of evolution happening.
Nothing in that run on sentence above would indicate that the facts that
evolution explains are not correct.

That "design in nature" is not denied by science, but simply not
demonstrated by anyone to be real should scuttle Mr. Scott's little
homily. Moreover, there are many possible ways that evolution can be
falsified.

If it were to be found that heredity did not exist. If it were to be
found that parents have no genetic link to their offspring. If it were
to be found that the environment has no effect on which variants
survive. If it were to be found there was no variation among offspring.


All of the above would falsify evolution. By your claim above, that
"punishment theory" is already falsified.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

So what, Ray? The adjectives are just used to describe words. Words
themselves aren't capable of refuting anything.

Do you think religion could be refuted by creative use of adjectives?

DJT



>
> Ray
>

[John Harshman]

Boy, that is some powerful crazy.

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:39:17 AM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
>>

>>> cause(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized

>>
>>> complexityand order seen in diversity.
>>
>>
>>

>> Ray, you keep using "diversity" in this absurd way. "Diversity" is
>> not a recognized short-hand for the _the diversity of life seen in
>> the biosphere_. You've been corrected on this point by multiple
>> people. You will not find any glossary entry in any biology or
>> ecology book that defines "diversity" in the way you seem to
>> want to use it.


>> Your stubborn use of common words with these special meanings that
>> are unique to you really hurts your cause. It is especially absurd
>> when you toss it in to a claim that something was common understanding.
>> It's hard to have a common understanding based on a word usage that
>> is essentially unique to Ray Martinez.


> I'm answering Roger because he is definitely a somebody in the
> Evolution v. Creation debate, which is to say that if a nobody in
> the debate had written the above reply I would completely ignore
> based on the inexcusable ignorance seen.


> Diversity was simply used to mean living things, past and present.
> The goal of prose is to use the least amount of words. So instead
> of writing "living things, past and present" I chose the word "diversity."
> Now we all are going to have to endure Roger digging in his heels.

I know you use it that way Ray, but nobody else does.
Or if they do, the word has been reduced to a jargonistic
tag far outside of its normal scope. Do a bit of research
on _jargon_, why it creeps in, why its bad that it does
if you hope to communicate with people outside of your
particular group. In this case, it's getting in the way
of you communicating on talk.origins and it will be worse
if you want to publish to a larger audience.

By the way, the goal of prose is not "to use the least
amount of words". It is to communicate. Too many words
can get in the way but too few can fail to convey the
correct understanding. Concise can be nice. Thus jargon.
But it risks serious misunderstandings.

This commentary is not an attack on your fundamental
arguments. I do that separately. There's no misunderstanding
about my disagreeing with you. But this is a separate
matter about the clarity of your writing as opposed to
the intended content.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 27/06/2013 02:58, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>
> I am waiting....

Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, ...


--
alias Ernest Major

[solar penguin]

And they gave him a Ph.D. for that gibberish...!?! Just imagine what
they would have done if he'd actually made some kind of sense.

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 02:58:59 UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:58:10 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:

<snip>

>
> > Wrong. Non random does not require a goal, or a purpose.
>

>
> Note asterisk emphasis in original claim of fact. Conceptually, non-random is >understood to convey the opposite of random.

True, and nobody denies this

> The evo response completely ignores while imparting a stipulated meaning, as >if said concept, within the context of the Darwinian episteme, can have an >anti-teleological meaning. It cannot. Yet I've acknowledged the fact that >certain stipulative meanings of the term, but not the concept, remain intact >or valid (review last sentence in the refutation). This *particular* >stipulation is, of course, invalid because it says the *concept* of non-random >conveys the *concept* of random.

gibberish


<snip>

> >
>
> > As explained to you multiple times, there is no such contradiction.
>
>
>
> As explained an equal number of times said denial doesn't cause the >self-evident contradiction to go away.

The denial does indeed not . The fact that you can't substantiate your claim that "random" and "non-teleological" contradict each other however does, as do the numerous counter examples yo have been given

>
>
> All it
>
> requires is a statistical bias. Gravity has no goal, and no purpose. It
>
> has no mind but it has a very profound effect on the trajectory of a moving
>
> object.

>Originally, gravity was conceived as a designed law by Newton. It has a clear >goal and purpose.
>

Here is Newton's universal law of gravity:

"Every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them"

Formally, that gives you F = G*(m1m2/d2) where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and d is the distance between the centres of the masses.(d2 stands here for d squared, due to limits to use formula in google groups)

Now tell me, wherein this equation does the "teleology factor" come in, and how to I use my knowledge about the "divine goal" of an object to determine the force tha tapplies to it?

I can't see any variable in the equation above that takes as value a "teleological number"

>
>
>
> Random and non-random contradict.

Random and non-random yes, and nobody denies this, Random and teleological on the other hand is a very different issue

> You're denying because admission equates to falsification of the Darwinian >cause-and-effect scheme.

Nope. Even if NS were totally random, this would not in any way falsify the Darwinian scheme. Your idea that contradictory terms can't be in a causal relation is provably wrong

<snip>

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/26/2013 9:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Does it make sense to you that a theory of biological processes can be
>> >effectively countered by an argument that mentions no biology at all,
>> >but instead rests entirely on the adjectives you choose to characterize
>> >those processes?

> Those adjectives exist abundantly in the writings of evo scientists and scholars.

I'll clarify then: How can a theory of biological processes be countered
by an argument that rests solely on the adjectives that *anyone* might
use to characterize those processes?

But more specifically:

Evolutionary change, in a nutshell, needs a source of variation and a
process that favors some of those variations over others.

The source of variation is genetic mutation. Some mutations change
something about the resulting organism.

Living creatures reproduce, but not all of them. Some die before they
get to reproduce, some fail to reproduce for other reasons and among
those that do reproduce, some do so more than others. This process
repeats over and over.

If a certain variation consistently helps the creatures that have it
place more progeny in the next generation, we can expect that variation
to become more widespread in the population as the generations pass. If
the "bias" for a certain variation is strong enough and persists for a
long enough time, that trait may spread to the entire population.

But here's the main point: This process is unaffected by the words we
use to describe it.

You call it "random" because it is unguided. Biologists call it
"non-random" because it has a bias; it "favors" some outcomes over
others. Stephanus thinks it is terribly important that the words
"Natural Selection" seem antithetical to him. But none of those "words"
affect the fact that - among the life forms we know - the "shape" of the
current crop of creatures is determined by which creatures were most
successful at surviving and reproducing in the past.

If a variation for a longer forelimb exists in a population, and the
creatures that possess that trait survive and reproduce more than their
brethren, we can expect a longer forelimb to become the norm over time,
however we might choose to describe it.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>
> >
>
> >I am waiting....
>
>
>
>
>
> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.

Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):

BEGIN QUOTE
There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.
END QUOTE

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:c61efe5a-11b3-4f5c...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to
>> >exist in nature?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I am waiting....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>
> Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>
> BEGIN QUOTE
> There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
> common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
> special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under

> which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally
> agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential

> on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them
> than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something
> controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world
> was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea
> that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their

> disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.
> END QUOTE
>

Yes, the only alternative to science is magic. Or are you familiar with any
other methods employed by God?

Rolf

> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I am waiting....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>
>Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>
>BEGIN QUOTE

>There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.
>END QUOTE
>
>Ray


That's it? That someone rejects special creation? That one
requirement is all that's necessary and sufficient to qualify as a
Darwinian authority?

Even without your conflation of creation and evolution, I remain
skeptical that you really believe as you appear to claim. For
example, would you consider as Darwinian authorities those who
rejected special creation before Darwin published? Or even before
Darwin was born? How about the classic philosophers like Democritus
and Lucretius?

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I am waiting....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>
> Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>
> BEGIN QUOTE
> There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
> common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
> special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under

> which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not
> totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one

> essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more
> essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural
> phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the
> diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and
> not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called

> Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories.
> END QUOTE
>
> Ray

Ray has been working in the quote mines again.

Has it ever occurred to you that just because a person, even someone as
respected as Mayr expresses an opinion, that person is not speaking on
behalf of science itself? Since you never actually read Mayr's book,
and are just repeating a quote you found on some quote mine site, what do
you imagine Mayr is saying here?

There were, in Darwin's time, several supporters of Darwin's theory who
believed that God used evolution as his means of creation. Asa Gray is
probably the best known of these. There is of course no reason a person
can't believe that a natural process isn't the work of God.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:58:10 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause
>

> > (Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity
>
> > and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>

> Fine as a religious belief, but is untestable, and unfalsifiable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

> > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material
>
> > causes (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized
>
> > complexity and order seen in diversity.
>
>
>

> This has been directly observed to happen in numerous real life
>
> observations.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

> > Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and
>
> > are mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
>
>

> Maybe, but the first was a religious belief, and is unsupported by any
>
> observations. It may safely be ignored as a scientific idea.
>
>
>
>
>

> > I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation
>
> > operating in the wild;
>
>
>

> That's ok. Reality does not require your approval.
>
>
>
>
>

> > and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of Intelligent or
>
> > immaterial causation operating in the wild.
>
>
>

> That's not exactly true. In fact it's what one might call a "lie".
>
> Scientists have long accepted that intelligent beings exist, even in
>
> different species than humans. Many scientists strongly believe in a
>
> supernatural being ( or more than one). However science has no way to
>
> detect, or determine the existence of any "immaterial causes", so out of
>
> practical necessity, scientists have chosen to study only material causes
>
> and effects. You may not agree with that, but the track record of
>
> success that science has had with this can't be gainsaid.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

> > -LOGIC
>
>
>
>
>
> Hang onto your hats, and be ready for a trip to wacky land...logic need not
>
> apply.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the
>
> > latter component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and non-random.
>
>
>

> More or less correct. Non random in that natural selection applies a

>
> decidedly non random bias to the random mutations generated by copy errors,
>
> and substitutions in DNA replication. Mutations which confer some kind
>
> of reproductive advantage become statistically more likely to be conserved.
>
> Those that are fatal, or offer a disadvantage to reproduction become less
>
> conserved. Those that neither give advantage, or detriment may, or may
>
> not be retained.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

> > The *concept* of non-random is teleological;
>
>
>

> Wrong. Non random does not require a goal, or a purpose. All it

>
> requires is a statistical bias. Gravity has no goal, and no purpose. It
>
> has no mind but it has a very profound effect on the trajectory of a moving
>
> object.
>
>
>

> > conveying something that is "designed to occur."
>
>
>
> However, in real life, this is false. There are many things which are not
>
> random, but were not designed to occur. Gravity, electromagnetism, the
>
> weak and strong forces, wind, precipitation, heat flows, etc, etc. (if
>
> you choose to claim these were all designed by God, then you have to accept
>
> that evolution itself may also have been planned by God).
>
>
>
>
>

> > This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent,
>
> undirected, unguided, and mindless.
>
>
>
> Once more, you have it wrong. Unintelligent et al are merely describing
>
> that the processes are automatic, and don't require any deliberate action
>
> to occur. There is nothing which requires an automatic process to be
>
> random.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature of random
>
> > mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.
>
>
>

> As explained to you multiple times, there is no such contradiction. Non

>
> random selection happens in conjunction with randomly occurring mutations.
>
> Your assertion of "illogical" has no basis.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms
>
> > accepted to describe effects or diversity,
>
>
>
> Terms used to describe things are irrelevant to how they work.

If not from workings, where did evo authorities obtain said descriptions?

> > which are pro-teleology concepts.
>
>
>
>
>
> You are assuming things not in evidence. Order can be produced by non
>
> teleological processes as well. You are asserting, without support that
>
> order must always be produced by teleological causes. Either offer
>
> evidence of this, or admit your error.

Comments beg the question: the cause-and-effect scheme exists therefore it is logical.

I'm pointing out that concepts and terms commonly used to describe the scheme contradict therefore said scheme cannot and does not exist in the wild. This readily explains why we see no such causation phenomenon operating in the wild.

> If you want evidence supporting my statement, I offer the formation of a
>
> thunderstorm from heat and unstable air.

Assuming your scientific allusions factually correct, all you're doing is restating the evolutionary claim in question while, once again, begging the question. Extrication from contradiction and illogic has not occurred. Before the rise of Darwinism all natural phenomena was considered designed. Your argument HERE relies on anti-teleological descriptions and conclusions published well after paradigm or episteme change.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:26:23 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I am waiting....
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>
> >
>
> >Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>
> >
>
> >BEGIN QUOTE
>
> >There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.
>
> >END QUOTE
>
> >
>
> >Ray
>
>
>
>
>
> That's it? That someone rejects special creation? That one
>
> requirement is all that's necessary and sufficient to qualify as a
>
> Darwinian authority?

Your inability to account for all criteria seen in the quote, and the presuppositions, is quite alarming.

Ray

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 28, 2013 4:57:51 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Comments beg the question: the cause-and-effect scheme exists therefore it is logical.
>
>
>
> I'm pointing out that concepts and terms commonly used to describe the scheme contradict therefore said scheme cannot and does not exist in the wild. This readily explains why we see no such causation phenomenon operating in the wild.

Your analysis of the adjectives used to describe the theory of evolution leads to the conclusion that an ordered outcome cannot be the result of a non-teleological cause. However, there are many examples from observations of the world (not just biology, but physics as well) which show that ordered effects can indeed come from non-teleological causes. You can deny reality (your forte) or you can consider the possibility that analyzing the words used to describe a theory doesn't tell you much about how the world really works. Persisting in these word games does your cause no good.

>

> Assuming your scientific allusions factually correct, all you're doing is restating the evolutionary claim in question while, once again, begging the question. Extrication from contradiction and illogic has not occurred. Before the rise of Darwinism all natural phenomena was considered designed. Your argument HERE relies on anti-teleological descriptions and conclusions published well after paradigm or episteme change.

You're wrong there. Long before the rise of Darwinism, there were thinkers who believed that all natural phenomena were the result of the mindless motion of atoms in the void. Have a look at Epicurus or Lucretius, both of whom predate Darwin by more than two thousand years.
>
>
>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:57:11 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I am waiting....
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>
> >
>
> > Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>
> >
>
> > BEGIN QUOTE
>
> > There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
>
> > common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
>
> > special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under
>

> > which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not
>
> > totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one

>
> > essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more
>
> > essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural
>
> > phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the
>
> > diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and
>
> > not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
>

> > Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.

>
> > END QUOTE
>
> >
>
> > Ray
>
>
>
> Ray has been working in the quote mines again.
>
>
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that just because a person, even someone as
>
> respected as Mayr expresses an opinion, that person is not speaking on
>
> behalf of science itself? Since you never actually read Mayr's book,
>
> and are just repeating a quote you found on some quote mine site, what do
>
> you imagine Mayr is saying here?

Mayr wrote in plain English.

All Dana is saying is that he rejects all facts that don't support his preconceived opinions and "theistic-evolution" (an oxymoron).

> There were, in Darwin's time, several supporters of Darwin's theory who
>
> believed that God used evolution as his means of creation. Asa Gray is
>
> probably the best known of these. There is of course no reason a person
>
> can't believe that a natural process isn't the work of God.
>
>
>
> DJT

Persons who believed in guided evolution were not "true original Darwinians" (review Mayr's quote); and "natural process" means the supernatural not involved (review Mayr's quote).

John Wilkins has corrected you on this. Would you like me to post the correction for your review? I have it saved in my email.

So we have two scholars, Wilkins and Mayr, who say natural means not supernatural. Those who believe otherwise are conveying subjective thought.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

From the fact that the processes described had no neural network, so were
incapable of having a mind. They also showed no evidence of being guided,
or being directed. The processes were also observed to be non random.
That is why they were described that way.

>
>>> which are pro-teleology concepts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You are assuming things not in evidence. Order can be produced by non
>>
>> teleological processes as well. You are asserting, without support that
>>
>> order must always be produced by teleological causes. Either offer
>>
>> evidence of this, or admit your error.
>
> Comments beg the question: the cause-and-effect scheme exists therefore it is logical.

Good grief, Ray, this has been explained to you dozens of times. This is
not a claim that since the "scheme" exists it must be logical. That would
be a form of begging the question. What I'm saying is that it has been
directly observed for order to be produced by processed which show no sign
of teleology. You, seem to be claiming that if order is seen , it must
involve teleology. That is begging the question on your own claim. You
would have to show that teleology, and only teleology is capable of
producing order. Do you have any evidence of this? Can you produce
any evidence ( not word games) to show that non guided natural processes
can't produce order?

>
> I'm pointing out that concepts and terms commonly used to describe the
> scheme contradict therefore said scheme cannot and does not exist in the wild.

And I, and everyone else is telling you that claim is silly, and
unsupported. Terms used and "concepts" are human constructs. They
cannot keep something from happening in the wild, or in the lab, or
anywhere else. In ancient writings, the term "red gold" was often used,
but gold isn't red, and never was.

The "conflict" is something you have made up by equivocating different
meanings for words and mixing them together. In the natural world, non
guided processes do not suddenly become random, just because you can find a
context under which "random" and " unguided" are used in a similar manner.
I can find a context where "cool" and "hot" are both used to describe a
popular celebrity, and no contradiction is meant, or assumed. Likewise,
I could describe something as "sick", and"bad" and still mean it is very
good. The point is word usage does not constrain reality.

> This readily explains why we see no such causation phenomenon operating in the wild.

Natural selection is commonly seen in "the wild". There are several well
known studies showing unguided, but non random selection having marked
effects on populations. Of these, the Peppered Moth study is the best
known. Another famous study was the Grant's study of beak sizes in the
finch species of the Galápagos Islands. A third well established study
involved tail spots on guppies in South American streams. I've given you
links to those studies several times.

On what do you base your claim it is not seen in the wild?

>
>> If you want evidence supporting my statement, I offer the formation of a
>>
>> thunderstorm from heat and unstable air.
>
> Assuming your scientific allusions factually correct,

I'm not assuming this. The findings are confirmed by countless
observations. Thunderstorms. Form literally every day, and no one has
ever observed a supernatural being involved.

> all you're doing is restating the evolutionary claim in question while,
> once again, begging the question.

Wrong again, Ray. What I stated above involves meteorology, not
evolution. The fact of natural selection is similar to the fact of
thunderstorm formation. Both involve natural causes for natural events.
If you feel that natural causes are not sufficient, then show some evidence
that supernatural involvement is required. Don't just play word games.

> Extrication from contradiction and illogic has not occurred.

Why would I, or anyone else need to "extract" this from a contradiction
that does not exist? There is no contradiction, as the words used the way
they are don't contradict. There is no "illogic" because the process flows
logically from the premises. Just because you assert contradiction, it does
not become so.

> Before the rise of Darwinism all natural phenomena was considered designed.

That religious belief is fine as religion, but isn't science. If one
wishes to believe that all phenomena were designed by God, that is ones
right. No scientist can say that is objectively false. Also, no scientist
can confirm such a belief. It remains a subjective belief.

> Your argument HERE relies on anti-teleological descriptions and
> conclusions published well after paradigm or episteme > change.

No, my argument relies on the fact that science doesn't deal with claims of
teleology. It never has, and never will. The way science has been done
hasn't changed. What has changed is that scientists have become more
rigorous in separating their religious beliefs from the objective process
of scientific investigation. You blame Darwin for this when in fact the
change was already well underway before Darwin was born. Darwin merely
applied this to biology, which was one of the last hold outs. Geology
and astronomy had already abandoned religious influences long before
Darwin.

Science is not "anti teleology". It just doesn't assume it.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:37:38 PM UTC-7, broger wrote:
> On Friday, June 28, 2013 4:57:51 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
> > Comments beg the question: the cause-and-effect scheme exists therefore it is logical.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm pointing out that concepts and terms commonly used to describe the scheme contradict therefore said scheme cannot and does not exist in the wild. This readily explains why we see no such causation phenomenon operating in the wild.
> >
>
>
> Your analysis of the adjectives used to describe the theory of evolution leads to the conclusion that an ordered outcome cannot be the result of a non-teleological cause.
>

Yes, the proposition is antonymic, illogical.

> However, there are many examples from observations of the world (not just
> biology, but physics as well) which show that ordered effects can indeed come > from non-teleological causes.

Another restatement:

Since X exists X must be logical = more question begging.

Only Darwinists believe non-teleological causation exists.

> You can deny reality (your forte) or you can
> consider the possibility that analyzing the words used to describe a theory
> doesn't tell you much about how the world really works. Persisting in these
> word games does your cause no good.

These comments actually say the descriptions are inaccurate or irrelevant. I'm sure the scientists that produce them disagree.

>
> >
>
>
>
> > Assuming your scientific allusions factually correct, all you're doing is restating the evolutionary claim in question while, once again, begging the question. Extrication from contradiction and illogic has not occurred. Before the rise of Darwinism all natural phenomena was considered designed. Your argument HERE relies on anti-teleological descriptions and conclusions published well after paradigm or episteme change.
>
>
>
>
>
> You're wrong there. Long before the rise of Darwinism, there were thinkers who believed that all natural phenomena were the result of the mindless motion of atoms in the void. Have a look at Epicurus or Lucretius, both of whom predate Darwin by more than two thousand years.
>

Bill says a literal few outweigh the many or the literal vast majority (= illogical).

Ray



> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:57:11 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept
>>>>> to exist in nature?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I am waiting....
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>>
>>>
>>
>>> BEGIN QUOTE
>>
>>> There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
>>
>>> common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of
>>
>>> special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under
>>

>>> which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not
>>
>>> totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one

>>
>>> essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more
>>
>>> essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural
>>
>>> phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the
>>
>>> diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and
>>
>>> not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called
>>

>>> Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories.

>>
>>> END QUOTE
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray has been working in the quote mines again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you that just because a person, even someone as
>>
>> respected as Mayr expresses an opinion, that person is not speaking on
>>
>> behalf of science itself? Since you never actually read Mayr's book,
>>
>> and are just repeating a quote you found on some quote mine site, what do
>>
>> you imagine Mayr is saying here?
>
> Mayr wrote in plain English.

Unfortunately, Ray has trouble understanding plain English.

>
> All Dana is saying is that he rejects all facts that don't support his
> preconceived opinions and "theistic-evolution" (an oxymoron).
>

No, I'm asking you what you think this out of context quote means.

I accept facts as they are. I also know that opinions and facts are not
the same thing.

>> There were, in Darwin's time, several supporters of Darwin's theory who
>>
>> believed that God used evolution as his means of creation. Asa Gray is
>>
>> probably the best known of these. There is of course no reason a person
>>
>> can't believe that a natural process isn't the work of God.
>>
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> Persons who believed in guided evolution were not "true original
> Darwinians" (review Mayr's quote); and "natural process" means the
> supernatural not involved (review Mayr's quote).

Again, Mayr was expressing an opinion. Since you did not read the book
you are quote mining, you really can't say what Mayr considered "true
Darwinists". More to the point, science was not, and still is not a cult
of personality. People may agree, or disagree with Darwin, and still
accept the fact of evolution.

Scientists still hold religious beliefs. If a scientist believes the fact
of evolution is how God created, there is no way to exclude that person
from being a scientist.

>
> John Wilkins has corrected you on this. Would you like me to post the
> correction for your review? I have it saved in my email.

John is also entitled to an opinion. That doesn't make him right or wrong
on this matter.

>
> So we have two scholars, Wilkins and Mayr, who say natural means not supernatural.

Neither John, or Ernst Mayr made such a claim, Ray. Natural only means "
not man made" in this context.

> Those who believe otherwise are > conveying subjective thought.

Again I marvel at the irony of you, who bases his entire position on
subjective thoughts, attempting to champion the objective. Objective
evidence shows that life evolves. You are trying to claim your subjective
religious beliefs trump this objective evidence,

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:26:23 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist in nature?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I am waiting....
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>>
>> >
>>
>> >BEGIN QUOTE
>>
>> >There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories.
>>
>> >END QUOTE
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's it? That someone rejects special creation? That one
>>
>> requirement is all that's necessary and sufficient to qualify as a
>>
>> Darwinian authority?
>
>Your inability to account for all criteria seen in the quote, and the presuppositions, is quite alarming.

I'm not interested in your word games. Specify your criteria and
presuppositions, or just admit you have no intention of responding
intelligently.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 28, 2013 5:59:47 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > Your analysis of the adjectives used to describe the theory of evolution leads to the conclusion that an ordered outcome cannot be the result of a non-teleological cause.
>

>
> Yes, the proposition is antonymic, illogical.

You have been given many examples, by Burkhard and others, in which causes can produce antonymic effects. My love of Sally makes me hate her boyfriend, my love of my country makes me hate its enemies, the hot fire in a gas-powered refrigerator produces cold. These may be "illogical" in the idiosyncratic sense that they violate your intuition, but they are there, existing, whether your intuition likes it or not.

>
>
>
> > However, there are many examples from observations of the world (not just
>
> > biology, but physics as well) which show that ordered effects can indeed come > from non-teleological causes.
>
>
>
> Another restatement:
>
>
>
> Since X exists X must be logical = more question begging.

No, actually since X exists (and it certainly does) then either X is logical, or illogical things can exist. Since, in your dictionary, logical means "compatible with Ray's intuition," my money is on "illogical things can exist." Using, of course, your own definition of illogical as "inconsistent with Ray's intuition."

> Only Darwinists believe non-teleological causation exists.
>
>
>
> > You can deny reality (your forte) or you can
>
> > consider the possibility that analyzing the words used to describe a theory
>
> > doesn't tell you much about how the world really works. Persisting in these
>
> > word games does your cause no good.
>
>
>
> These comments actually say the descriptions are inaccurate or irrelevant. I'm sure the scientists that produce them disagree.
>

No, these comments say that if you want to challenge a scientific theory you have to look at the real world which the theory attempts to model. Playing word games with the adjectives used in descriptions of the theory tells you nothing.

>

>
> > You're wrong there. Long before the rise of Darwinism, there were thinkers who believed that all natural phenomena were the result of the mindless motion of atoms in the void. Have a look at Epicurus or Lucretius, both of whom predate Darwin by more than two thousand years.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Bill says a literal few outweigh the many or the literal vast majority (= illogical).
>

No, I simply say that, contrary to your claim, there were people thousands of years before Darwin who believed that natural phenomena were not designed. Pretty simple. People who believe the world is designed have always been in the majority, and still are today, except perhaps in China and a few countries in Northern Europe.


> > > Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46:48 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

[....]

> I'm not interested in your word games. Specify your criteria and
> presuppositions, or just admit you have no intention of responding
> intelligently.

Mayr wrote in the plainest English possible. Yet you claim to understand very complicated scientific arguments, but are suddenly unable to draw a few basic facts from a non-complicated historical quote.

"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched."

This says "all true original Darwinians" rejected creationism and special creatio----or that which was held true by science at the time. "All true original Darwinians" are thus defined by the characeristic of rejection of teleological assumptions, interpretations, explanations, and conclusions. "This was THE flag around which they assembled and under which they marched."

"When Hull claimed that �the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials�, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed."

Mayr is now going to reiterate and respecify the one area of unanimous agreement that "all true original Darwinians" held.

"Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God."

Since creationism was accepted by science, the Darwinians wanted to know if Darwinian evolution was teleological.

"The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories."

The verdict of "all true original Darwinians" concerning teleology was negative: "the natural world" was produced by "natural processes" which was "not the work of God." This was the sole point of agreement that "all true original Darwinians" held.

Thus "all true original Darwinians" reject any and all concepts that support Intelligent causation and designed effects existing in diversity.

For Roger Shrubber:

Mayr used the word "diversity" exactly as I used the same word. You owe me an apology.

Ray

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:707302400394062099.2647...@freenews.netfront.net...

I have told Ray similar things many times over the years but since it is bad
for his "theory" he is deaf to such obvious facts.

> Since you never actually read Mayr's book,
> and are just repeating a quote you found on some quote mine site, what do
> you imagine Mayr is saying here?
>


> There were, in Darwin's time, several supporters of Darwin's theory who
> believed that God used evolution as his means of creation. Asa Gray is
> probably the best known of these. There is of course no reason a person
> can't believe that a natural process isn't the work of God.
>

If God created the world, would not all the properties of the world be God's
creation, with the implication that the ultimate cause of everything that
happens in the world is God? And we are back at base one, an nothing has
changes. Things are what they are because that's the way it is.

That's the way I think it is.

The only person capable of proving me wrong is Ray;)
He might prove green is red so it is good for the world he chose to spend
his talent on an obscure field like evolution.

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:1466671113394066704.166...@freenews.netfront.net...

I wonder what Ray would have to say about a Christian scientist (and YEC)
like Kurt Wise?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:88cdc1f8-ca36-4af9...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:58:10 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> I'm pointing out that concepts and terms commonly used to describe the
> scheme contradict therefore said scheme cannot and does not exist in the
> wild.

The wirld is not the way you think the wirld is.

>This readily explains why we see no such causation phenomenon operating in
>the wild.

But we see that in the wirld.

>
>> If you want evidence supporting my statement, I offer the formation of a
>> thunderstorm from heat and unstable air.
>
> Assuming your scientific allusions factually correct, all you're doing is
> restating the evolutionary claim in question while, once again, begging
> the question. Extrication from contradiction and illogic has not occurred.
> Before the rise of Darwinism all natural phenomena was considered
> designed. Your argument HERE relies on anti-teleological descriptions and
> conclusions published well after paradigm or episteme change.
>
> Ray
>
>> > In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random
>> > contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and
>> > vice-versa);
>> There is no logical reason those must contradict each other. Random can
>> happen in conjunction with non random, as can easily be seen with
>> gambling
>> machines. Non random does not contradict mindless, unguided, etc, as
>> they often go together. Again as an example, I offer mindless, unguided
>> gravity providing non random direction to ballistic objects.
>>

[snip]

[Rolf]

<broger...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:71181ead-75a6-4245...@googlegroups.com...

But they are a rich source of LOL's and keeps us busy.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46:48 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

>>>> >>[....]
>

>>>> >> Specify your qualifications for Darwinian authority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >BEGIN QUOTE
>>>>

>>>> >There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories.

>>>>
>>>> >END QUOTE
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >Ray
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's it? That someone rejects special creation? That one
>>>> requirement is all that's necessary and sufficient to qualify as a
>>>> Darwinian authority?
>>>
>>>Your inability to account for all criteria seen in the quote, and the presuppositions, is quite alarming.
>>

>> I'm not interested in your word games. Specify your criteria and
>> presuppositions, or just admit you have no intention of responding
>> intelligently.
>
>Mayr wrote in the plainest English possible.

Unlike you.

> Yet you claim to understand very complicated scientific arguments, but are suddenly unable to draw a few basic facts from a non-complicated historical quote.

You might have a point if my request had anything to do with that

historical quote.


>"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched."
>
>This says "all true original Darwinians" rejected creationism and special creatio----or that which was held true by science at the time. "All true original Darwinians" are thus defined by the characeristic of rejection of teleological assumptions, interpretations, explanations, and conclusions. "This was THE flag around which they assembled and under which they marched."

You're conflating "teleology" and "creationism" and "evolution". In
context, I suppose creationism assumes teleology, that God invented
the Universe for a purpose, but the reverse isn't true, that teleology
assumes God-driven creation. And biological evolution says nothing
about God, how the Universe was created, or about His presumptive
purpose for doing so.

>"When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed."
>
>Mayr is now going to reiterate and respecify the one area of unanimous agreement that "all true original Darwinians" held.
>
>"Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God."
>
>Since creationism was accepted by science, the Darwinians wanted to know if Darwinian evolution was teleological.
>
>"The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories."
>
>The verdict of "all true original Darwinians" concerning teleology was negative: "the natural world" was produced by "natural processes" which was "not the work of God." This was the sole point of agreement that "all true original Darwinians" held.
>
>Thus "all true original Darwinians" reject any and all concepts that support Intelligent causation and designed effects existing in diversity.

So are you now arguing that "all true original Darwinians" were the
only Darwinian authorities, that Darwinian authorities no longer
exist?

Rather than continue to refer to your obfuscating quote, you would
explain yourself better if you dropped it altogether and explicitly
specified your qualifications for Darwinian authority.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For Roger Shrubber:
>
>Mayr used the word "diversity" exactly as I used the same word. You owe me an apology.

I have no idea how this is relevant to what I wrote. It would be
better to post this in a reply to Roger Shrubber, instead of burying
it in a reply to me.

[Ray Martinez]

6-28-13

I can't respond to any message that is long because the formatting in New Google Groups is down, running the entire message into one paragraph. But I'm going to try and respond to shorter posts, cutting and pasting excerpts from the original.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:46:49 PM UTC-7, broger...wrote:

> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:03:15 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > Does it make sense to you that a theory of biological processes can be
>
>
>
> > > effectively countered by an argument that mentions no biology at all,
>
>
>
> > > but instead rests entirely on the adjectives you choose to characterize
>
>
>
> > > those processes?
>
>
>
> > Those adjectives exist abundantly in the writings of evo scientists and scholars.
>
>
>

> So what?? Prepositions and adverbs also exist abundantly in the writings of "evo scientists and scholars," but analysis of their grammar won't tell you whether their theory is correct. The theory of evolution is a great theory, but not one that can be effectively defended by the proper use of adjectives. For that, one needs to look at what happens in the biological world. And if you wanted to have a chance at "refuting Darwinism" you'd have to stop contemplating your linguistic navel and start looking, in the biological world, for evidence falsifying the theory of evolution. These word games just make you look silly. Grammar and antonymic adjective pairs tell you nothing about biological processes.
>

I am very happy to see Darwinist Bill Rogers throw the collective set of often used adjectives, chosen by Darwinian scientists and scholars to describe their cause-and-effect scheme, under the bus. These adjectives are allegedly derived from biological reality. Thus my preliminary refutation, showing the contradictory nature of the evo scheme, successfully places the theory of evolution in a state of falsification while vindicating the claims of we Paleyans----that the scheme is incomprehensible and non-existent; extent of existence limited to the deluded minds of Darwin and his successors.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:58:10 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>

> > which are pro-teleology concepts.
>
>
>
>
>
> You are assuming things not in evidence. Order can be produced by non
>
> teleological processes as well. You are asserting, without support that
>
> order must always be produced by teleological causes. Either offer
>
> evidence of this, or admit your error.
>
>
>

> If you want evidence supporting my statement, I offer the formation of a
>
> thunderstorm from heat and unstable air.
>
>
>
>
>

> > In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random
>
> > contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa);
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no logical reason those must contradict each other.

Response says connected antonyms do not represent contradiction. Perhaps our Evolutionist could create a cause-and-effect scheme that contradicts so we can see how it might look?

> Random can
>
> happen in conjunction with non random, as can easily be seen with gambling
>
> machines. Non random does not contradict mindless, unguided, etc, as
>
> they often go together. Again as an example, I offer mindless, unguided
>
> gravity providing non random direction to ballistic objects.

More restatement and more question begging. Moreover, gravity conveys teleology, only Evolutionists deny.

Ray

[....]

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 2:36:12 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> More restatement and more question begging. Moreover, gravity conveys teleology, only Evolutionists deny.

Ray, I'm happy to adjust to your odd use of words and accept a definition of teleology under which the goal of objects is to follow the laws of physics. Indeed, using that definition, I'm even perfectly happy to say that evolution is teleological, in the sense that it indeed follows the laws of physics.

You could, however, speak more plainly. "Gravity conveys teleology," is a difficult sentence to parse. I've assumed you mean that the existence of such physical laws as gravity implies that the objects which obey those laws have a teleology precisely to obey the laws. That's fine; we can work with that definition. Just don't confuse that rather idiosyncratic use of the word teleology with the meaning of a designed, goal, which is the object of a conscious intention.

>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> [....]

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 2:21:45 AM UTC+7, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> > So what?? Prepositions and adverbs also exist abundantly in the writings of "evo scientists and scholars," but analysis of their grammar won't tell you whether their theory is correct. The theory of evolution is a great theory, but not one that can be effectively defended by the proper use of adjectives. For that, one needs to look at what happens in the biological world. And if you wanted to have a chance at "refuting Darwinism" you'd have to stop contemplating your linguistic navel and start looking, in the biological world, for evidence falsifying the theory of evolution. These word games just make you look silly. Grammar and antonymic adjective pairs tell you nothing about biological processes.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I am very happy to see Darwinist Bill Rogers throw the collective set of often used adjectives, chosen by Darwinian scientists and scholars to describe their cause-and-effect scheme, under the bus. These adjectives are allegedly derived from biological reality. Thus my preliminary refutation, showing the contradictory nature of the evo scheme, successfully places the theory of evolution in a state of falsification while vindicating the claims of we Paleyans----that the scheme is incomprehensible and non-existent; extent of existence limited to the deluded minds of Darwin and his successors.

As you've been told many times. What matters is biological reality, not the adjectives used to describe it. Things happen in nature which your antonymic analysis says cannot happen. Therefore your antonymic analysis is wrong. Nature trumps word games every time.

As a side note a scheme cannot be both non-existent and incomprehensible. If it does not exist it cannot be either comprehensible nor incomprehensible. But I think the real translation of "the scheme is incomprehensible and non-existent," from Ray-speak to English is "I don't understand it, and it must be wrong anyway."

>
>
>
> Ray

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/28/2013 3:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In short: random contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random
>>> > >contradicts mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa);

>> >There is no logical reason those must contradict each other.

> Response says connected antonyms do not represent contradiction.
> Perhaps our Evolutionist could create a cause-and-effect scheme
> that contradicts so we can see how it might look?

You know Ray, this is a reasonable facsimile of a thought-provoking
question. Is it in fact possible to construct a cause-and-effect scheme
that can be judged false based solely on the words used, without
checking it in the real world?

Offhand, I would say no. We always need to compare the claim with
empirical observation. We can't know that a tornado in a junkyard can't
make a 747 by examining the words, we'll need to draw on our experience
with tornadoes, junkyards and airplanes, at least.

[Burkhard]

Possibly one where the effect is itself logically contradictory: Taking vitamin pills caused me to be both smaller than 5 ft and taller than 5 ft (at the same time)

Must be a true contradiction though, and that means in all aspects

[solar penguin]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:46:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:32:57 AM UTC-7, alias Ernest Major wrote:

>> > On 27/06/2013 02:58, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> > Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept
>> > to exist in nature?
>
>> > I am waiting....
>

>> Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, ... -- alias Ernest Major
>
> The Mayr quotes defines true Darwinians as persons who reject
> teleological causation existing in nature; therefore neither Gray nor
> Miller is a true Darwinian. Miller accepts a teleological First Cause
> and Gray advocated guided variation.

But are they true Scotsmen?

>
> Ray

[John Harshman]

On 6/28/13 11:46 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:32:57 AM UTC-7, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2013 02:58, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>> Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist
>>> in nature?
>
>>> I am waiting....
>
>> Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, ... -- alias Ernest Major
>
> The Mayr quotes defines true Darwinians as persons who reject teleological causation existing in nature; therefore neither Gray nor Miller is a true Darwinian. Miller accepts a teleological First Cause and Gray advocated guided variation.

Ray, that's the "no true Scotsman" argument. And as far as I can tell,
you have not quoted Ernst Mayr yet in this thread. What Mayr quote?

[deadrat]

No, no. One pill makes you larger. The *other* makes you small. And
we know about the ones mother gives you.

<snip/>

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:46:26 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:32:57 AM UTC-7, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>> > On 27/06/2013 02:58, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> > Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist
>> > in nature?
>
>> > I am waiting....
>
>> Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, ... -- alias Ernest Major
>
>The Mayr quotes defines true Darwinians as persons who reject teleological causation existing in nature; therefore neither Gray nor Miller is a true Darwinian. Miller accepts a teleological First Cause and Gray advocated guided variation.

Wrong. As you pointed out, your Mayr quote explicitly refers to "all
true original Darwinians". Of course, you haven't defined what
qualifies a true original Darwinian, and you *still* haven't defined
what qualifies extant Darwinian authorities. I sure hope I don't have
to wait as long for that as I have for your book.

[hersheyh]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:20:21 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:51:45 PM UTC-7, hersheyh wrote:

>
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:56:25 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause (Supernaturalism) creates
> > > the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity.

> > > The episteme of Darwinism (anti-teleological): unintelligent material causes
> > > (Materialism/Naturalism) produce the effects of organized complexity and
> > > order seen in diversity.

> > > Epistemologically, both causation proposals contradict diametrically and are mutually

> > > exclusive. I do not accept existence of unintelligent material or natural causation
> > > operating in the wild; and Darwin and his successors do not accept existence of

> > > Intelligent or immaterial causation operating in the wild.

> > > -LOGIC-

> > > Material causation; chance or random mutation + natural selection: the latter
> > > component described as mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent and
> > > non-random.

> > The *former* (random mutation) is "mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent,
> > and random" *with respect to need*. Mutation, as any chemical process, follows
> > rules related to the types and frequency of changes. The *latter* (natural selection),
> > is *mostly mindless* (one could consider that prey-predator environmental events
> > sometimes involve the minds of both when the predator mentally recognizes the
> > prey and the prey recognizes danger), is *guided* by some environmental condition,
> > is *directed* by some environmental condition, and is, as you point out "non-random".
> > It is unintelligent only to the extent that variation in intelligence is not being selected
> > for So, the only one of your descriptors of natural selection (non-random) is correct.

> The following adjectives are found liberally in the publications of evo authorities: mindless,
> unguided, undirected, unintelligent.

As I corrected above, both mutation and natural selection are mindless and unintelligent
(if you ignore the fact that predators and prey often use their minds and intelligence to get
affect their reproductive success).

And mutation (but NOT natural selection) is unguided and undirected. Natural selection is
guided and directed by the interaction of phenotype and environment. Mindlessly guided.
Mindlessly directed. Unintelligently (unperceptively) directed or guided.

> Collectively, these adjectives convey the claim of fact that natural selection is anti-teleological.

Teleologically implies direction by intelligent intention, not by unintelligent environment stresses.
So I agree that natural selection (as opposed to human-designed 'artificial selection', which is what
is the opposite of 'natural' in Darwin's writings) is non-teleological in the same sense that water
crystallizing to ice at low temperatures is non-teleological.

> Moreover your commentary, seen above, conveys stipulated meanings for each term. That
> said, what's the point, Howard?

You do not get to change the meanings of words. And you are specifically claiming that 'natural
selection' (despite its intentional use of the word 'selection') actually means 'completely random'
effects unaffected by environmental conditions or organismal phenotype.

> > > The *concept* of non-random is teleological; conveying something that is "designed to
> > > occur." This concept contradicts the other *concepts* of unintelligent, undirected,
> > > unguided, and mindless. Non-random also contradicts the random or chance nature

> > > of random mutation (and vice-versa). Therefore the material causation scheme is illogical.

Again, I must point out that the concept of randomness *only* applies to the mutation process,
not to 'natural selection'. Natural selection is decidedly non-random. Moreover, the use of
'random' wrt mutation specifically means "an inability to predict which site will mutate and when"
but only the ability to determine population values. It is the same meaning one uses in rolling
dice. You cannot predict the result for any single roll, but you can predict that, on average, each
side will come up 1/6th of the time.

> > The concept of "random" in the sense of mutation implies an inability to predict change for
> > a specific individual site. One can, however, predict the rate of mutation for a *population*
> > of sites quite well. Thus the opposite of random in this sense is the ability to predict a
> > result for a specific site each and every time. That is, the consequence is inevitable or
> > universal. For example, if you lower the temperature of almost pure water below freezing
> > at atmospheric pressure it will inevitably turn to ice. That does not mean that ice formation
> > is "teleologically determined".

> Review the top two paragraphs in my preliminary refutation.

I did. The review did not improve the so-called 'logic', based as it is on the tired old attempt to
claim that anything that is directed is always directed (caused) by intelligent agency and anything
without an intelligent agent is randomness.

> > > Moreover, said scheme, minus the concept of non-random, contradicts terms accepted

> > > to describe effects or diversity, which are pro-teleology concepts. In short: random

> > > contradicts non-random (and vice-versa); non-random contradicts mindless, unguided,

> > > undirected, unintelligent (and vice-versa); and chance or random along with mindless,
> > > unguided, undirected and unintelligent contradicts organization and order. Thus

> > > Darwinists have fused contrary or contradictory concepts together. I call the same
> > > "contrary-fusion" or confusion.

[snip]

> > [I]t is quite true that the process of mutation produces genetic variance. And natural
> > selection reduces that variance to the extent that said change is locally useful or not
> > on the metric of reproductive success.

IOW, we are talking about two different processes: Mutation, which increases variance without
respect to 'need' (that is, utility on the metric of reproductive success). And natural selection,
which reduces variance specifically with respect to 'need' (utility on the metric of reproductive
success. Both processes exist in nature, just like acids and bases both exist in nature. It is not
surprising that there are net consequences of these processes. In the case of acids and bases,
the consequence is a specific pH. In the case of mutation and natural selection, the consequence
is optimization of a population to its environment and change when that environment changes.

> > > -SUB-CONCLUSION-

> > > In essence, the collective evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is antonymic or
> > > contradictory in nature; containing contrary concepts: thus said scheme is, in fact,
> > > illogical and false.

> > So your logic tells you that it is impossible for one process to produce variation and
> > another process to reduce the variation produced? That is like saying that it is
> > impossible for one process or chemical to make something more acidic and a different
> > process or chemical to reduce that acidity.

> Evasion through and through.

Not evasion at all. Your 'logic' basically is saying that it is impossible for there to be two
processes in nature that work in opposite directions to produce a net result. In this case,
mutation producing variation at random and natural selection working to reduce that
variation to favor optimal reproductive success of the population in a
particular (or in some cases, changing) environment.

My point that such processes are common in nature (using acid and base as an example)
is a direct assault on your claim that because the processes of mutation and selection are
'contradictory' wrt to the correct meaning of 'randomness' (neither is intelligently
directed or mindful) that they, working together, cannot produce a net result or cannot
exist (it is not exactly clear what you mean to say here).

You are the one who is evading a direct response to this assault on your so-called 'logical'
argument.

> We all know what that means.

Yes. That your argument is invalid because you don't know the meaning of 'random' nor
'selection' as used in mutation and 'natural selection'. You probably are under the impression
that 'selection' can only be done by some intelligence doing something 'mindfully'. That you
don't give a correct definition of 'random' as it is used in mutation is embarrassingly obvious.
Again 'random' refers to the inability to predict any specific trial, not to an inability to predict
a population measure. An event can be 'random' in this sense, even if it occurs 99% of the
time, if you cannot predict which 1% changes. In fact, in mutation, the odds are even more
biased. Often only about 10^-8 individuals per generation mutate at a specific site. The other
99.999999% don't. But I cannot tell you ahead of time, which one will mutate. And mutation
will be unlinked to need.

> Ray

>
>
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -ANSWERING POTENTIAL CRITICISM-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -OBJECTION-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Darwinists point out, for example, that chance or random and non-random are not defined scientifically to convey either a pro-teleological or anti-teleological meaning.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > -ANSWER-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The scientific definitions alluded to are valid stipulative meanings, however. These stipulations, along with both terms (and their synonyms), do indeed presuppose either a pro-teleology or anti-teleology meaning per their service to the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs). All the concepts or terms in question can have more than one valid meaning. The meanings I convey are nonetheless valid. To say otherwise denies a basic premise (presence of antonyms conveys contradiction).
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Valid but irrelevant.

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -OBJECTION-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Darwinists charge that material causation (as so represented) is indeed known to exist; therefore the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme becomes logical automatically.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > -ANSWER-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The objection, by presupposition, confirms the contradictory structure of the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme. Therefore the causation proposal cannot and does not exist in the wild. We Paleyans see no such phenomenon occurring in the wild among species. Existence, therefore, is restricted to the minds of Darwinists.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -MASTER CONCLUSION-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The inclusion of the concept of "non-random" within the Darwinian episteme serves one purpose: to make the cause-and-effect scheme appear logical, or save the scheme from appearing illogical. Since natural selection is the last or final cause that handles species the concept of non-random becomes a logical necessity for the production of organized or ordered effects. But since the Darwinian episteme is admittedly non-teleological or anti-teleology, the concept of "non-random," despite its pro-teleological appearance, conveys the exact opposite. Thus the stipulative meanings remain intact.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[Ymir]

In article <ebee8609-e827-4169...@googlegroups.com>,

Your consequent isn't really a logical contradiction, though, since it
depends on the specific definitions of 'larger' and 'smaller' employed.
I am simultaneously longer than five feet and shorter than five feet,
albeit not in precisely the same direction.

Andr�

[Ray Martinez]

Your use of the concept of teleology is entirely stipulative and in this case impermissible and invalid. Stipulative meanings are, of course, legitimate; but to stipulate a material meaning, in the context of its traditional immaterial meaning, propagates confusion. The adjectives in question, despite other valid stipulative meanings, retain their primary anti-teleological meanings within the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs in the refutation).

> > Moreover your commentary, seen above, conveys stipulated meanings for each > > term. That
>
> > said, what's the point, Howard?
>
>
>
> You do not get to change the meanings of words. And you are specifically claiming that 'natural
>
> selection' (despite its intentional use of the word 'selection') actually means 'completely random'
>
> effects unaffected by environmental conditions or organismal phenotype.

I haven't changed the meaning of any particular word, Howard. And yes I am saying natural selection means "completely random"----that the concept of "non-random," as it is used to describe the selection process, contradicts other words used to describe the same process; namely, mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent. And I'm saying the concept of "non-random," despite other valid stipulative meanings, except invalid pro-teleology stipulations, always retains its anti-teleological meaning within the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs in the refutation; and review last sentence in the refutation). You seem to be forgetting the fact that the adjectives under examination can have more than one valid meaning, except, of course, a pro-teleology meaning or stipulation. Again, review my refutation where I account for multiple valid meanings of any given term in question.

Thus, as per the adjectival descriptions of mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent; and per the collective set existing within the anti-teleological view of the Darwinian episteme, natural selection is, in fact, a chance or random process. The fact does not harm any stipulative meaning of "non-random" except pro-teleology stipulations which are falsified by the anti-teleological episteme itself.

Moreover, the "non-random" description is NOT taken from the causation component of natural selection, but from the effect component of organization or order. Thus the random or chance nature of the selection process, per the other descriptive terms, is further supported and established.

Ray

(Will finish replying ASAP)

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, June 28, 2013 2:17:38 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

>>>> On 27/06/2013 02:58, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>>> Show me any Darwinian authority who accepts any teleological concept to exist
>>>> in nature?
>
>>>> I am waiting....
>
>>> Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, ... -- alias Ernest Major
>

>> The Mayr quote defines true Darwinians as persons who reject teleological causation existing in nature; therefore neither Gray nor Miller is a true Darwinian. Miller accepts a teleological First Cause and Gray advocated guided variation.

>>

> Ray, that's the "no true Scotsman" argument.

Are you suggesting no objective criteria exists to determine a true Darwinian?

> And as far as I can tell,
> you have not quoted Ernst Mayr yet in this thread. What Mayr quote?

I have quoted Mayr in this thread. If you conduct a search of the messages you will find the quote in question. Here it is again:

Ernst Mayr, "One Long Argument" (1991:99):

BEGIN QUOTE
There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories.
END QUOTE

A very clear and uncomplicated criteria is seen in the quote. A Darwinian is a person who rejects all concepts that support teleological causation and influence to exist in the wild. Here at Talk.Origins, in addition to yourself, John Wilkins, Howard Hershey, Robert Camp, Greg Guarino, and Bill Rogers, to name just a few, are all true Darwinians. Asa Gray and Ken Miller are not for the reasons stated. Moreover, don't even think of invoking 1859:490. Darwin officially retracted the teleological ending of The Origin (reference withheld; and I'm NOT talking about the "truckled" letter written to Joseph Hooker in private correspondence). Yet the Mayr quote presupposes the ending of The Origin disingenuous.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, June 28, 2013 1:28:53 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > So what?? Prepositions and adverbs also exist abundantly in the writings of "evo scientists and scholars," but analysis of their grammar won't tell you whether their theory is correct. The theory of evolution is a great theory, but not one that can be effectively defended by the proper use of adjectives. For that, one needs to look at what happens in the biological world. And if you wanted to have a chance at "refuting Darwinism" you'd have to stop contemplating your linguistic navel and start looking, in the biological world, for evidence falsifying the theory of evolution. These word games just make you look silly. Grammar and antonymic adjective pairs tell you nothing about biological processes.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> > I am very happy to see Darwinist Bill Rogers throw the collective set of often used adjectives, chosen by Darwinian scientists and scholars to describe their cause-and-effect scheme, under the bus. These adjectives are allegedly derived from biological reality. Thus my preliminary refutation, showing the contradictory nature of the evo scheme, successfully places the theory of evolution in a state of falsification while vindicating the claims of we Paleyans----that the scheme is incomprehensible and non-existent; extent of existence limited to the deluded minds of Darwin and his successors.
> >

> As you've been told many times. What matters is biological reality, not the adjectives used to describe it. Things happen in nature which your antonymic analysis says cannot happen. Therefore your antonymic analysis is wrong. Nature trumps word games every time.
>

That's the point: The terms used, allegedly derived from observation and inference, mean the cause-and-effect scheme cannot and does not exist in the wild. In response you're demanding the ToE be given a special exemption from accepted logic. That logic has been used from the beginning of time to determine what exists and what doesn't exist.

>
As a side note a scheme cannot be both non-existent and incomprehensible. If it does not exist it cannot be either comprehensible nor incomprehensible. But I think the real translation of "the scheme is incomprehensible and non-existent," from Ray-speak to English is "I don't understand it, and it must be wrong anyway."
>

As far as I know I'm the only regular participant in the Creation/Evolution debate to ever initiate and admit that I do not understand the science of natural selection. The reason I don't understand is because no such thing exists in the wild. It only exists in the deluded minds of Darwinists and Evolutionists. My logical refutation says so.

"I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

The "explanatory mechanism" (D. Theobald) of natural selection only exists in the minds of Materialists, not in nature.

The Theory of how Evolution occurs (natural selection) is falsified.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[hersheyh]

So, trying to make some sense out of your word salad, are you claiming that "teleology' does not
imply direction by intelligent intention? What I am doing is making a distinction between 'teleology'
and 'causal' effects. Water crystalizing due to low temperatures is a 'causal' relationship, not a
teleological one.

> Stipulative meanings are, of course, legitimate; but to stipulate a material meaning, in the context of
> its traditional immaterial meaning, propagates confusion. The adjectives in question, despite other
> valid stipulative meanings, retain their primary anti-teleological meanings within the Darwinian
> episteme (review initial paragraphs in the refutation).

'Mindless' and 'unintelligent' do describe both mutation and natural selection. I am pointing out that
'guided' and 'directed' are not synonyms of 'mindless' and 'unintelligent'. A stream can be 'guided' downhill or 'directed' through a valley without that 'guided' or 'directed' being due to intelligence.
I am not arguing that natural selection is not teleological. I agree with that. I am saying that
natural selection is not 'random' and causally directed by the interaction of external environment and
organismal phenotype. That is, natural selection is NOT RANDOM. It has direction and the environment
guides the process on the metric of reproductive success.

[snip]

>
> > You do not get to change the meanings of words. And you are specifically claiming that 'natural
> > selection' (despite its intentional use of the word 'selection') actually means 'completely random'
> > effects unaffected by environmental conditions or organismal phenotype.
>
>
>
> I haven't changed the meaning of any particular word, Howard. And yes I am saying natural
> selection means "completely random"----that the concept of "non-random," as it is used to
> describe the selection process, contradicts other words used to describe the same process;
> namely, mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent.

And I have no real problem with 'mindless' and 'unintelligent' (just the quibble that intelligence
of the organism is a selectable trait). I do disagree with your use of 'unguided' and
'undirected' *unless* you specify 'unguided by an intelligent agent' and 'undirected by an
intelligent agent'. Natural selection is a process that is guided by the interaction of organisms
with their environment. The direction of selection is also causally related to the interaction
of organisms with their environment. Both in the absence of any 'intelligent agent' behind it.
But that is NOT the same as claimiing, therefore, that natural selection is 'completely random'.
It is not.

> And I'm saying the concept of
> "non-random," despite other valid stipulative meanings, except invalid pro-teleology stipulations,
> always retains its anti-teleological meaning within the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs
>in the refutation; and review last sentence in the refutation).

And I agree that the directionality and environmental guidance that can be measured on the
metric of reproductive success is not teleological. That does not make it 'completely random'.
It has a causal relationship with the environment. It is directional.

Again mutation (which is random wrt need) increases variance and natural selection *selectively*
and *differentially* reduces that variance.

> You seem to be forgetting the fact that
> the adjectives under examination can have more than one valid meaning, except, of course, a pro-
> teleology meaning or stipulation. Again, review my refutation where I account for multiple valid
> meanings of any given term in question.

I am actually helping you clarify your thoughts by telling you that you must specify that when
you use 'directionless' you really mean 'not directed by an outside intelligent agent' and when you
use 'unguided' you mean specifically 'not guided by an outside intelligent agent'. Otherwise you
are conflating different meanings of 'guided' and 'direction', some of which involve outside
intelligent agency and others which describe other causal relationships not involving outside
intelligent agency as 'guided' or 'directed' (e.g., a stream is directed by gravity and local geology
to follow a specific path).

>
> Thus, as per the adjectival descriptions of mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent; and
> per the collective set existing within the anti-teleological view of the Darwinian episteme, natural
> selection is, in fact, a chance or random process.

No. It is not a chance or random process. It is 'directional' or 'selective' in that different phenotypes
are affected differentially for cause. Anything that is affected differentially for cause is not being
randomly affected by that cause.

> The fact does not harm any stipulative meaning of
> "non-random" except pro-teleology stipulations which are falsified by the anti-teleological episteme
> itself.

Again, I am not arguing that natural selection is teleological. It isn't. But because natural selection,
when it occurs, specifically produces a 'differential effect due to cause', it most certainly is not
random. When natural selection occurs (and there are many cases where it doesn't) there is
significant bias or interaction between variables (in this case, the variables are phenotype and
environment).

> Moreover, the "non-random" description is NOT taken from the causation component of natural
> selection, but from the effect component of organization or order. Thus the random or chance nature
> of the selection process, per the other descriptive terms, is further supported and established.

Again, mutation produces variation and natural selection, when it occurs, differentially reduces that
variation *because* (causally) of the interaction between the variables of phenotype and environment.

> Ray
>
>
>
> (Will finish replying ASAP)
>

[snip]

[August Rode]

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 4:43:58 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, June 28, 2013 1:28:53 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> As far as I know I'm the only regular participant in the Creation/Evolution debate to ever initiate and admit that I do not understand the science of natural selection. The reason I don't understand is because no such thing exists in the wild.

Then you believe that the environment in which organisms live have no effect on their reproductive success?

<snip>

[deadrat]

You can keep saying that, but it's not.

> ----that the concept of "non-random," as it is used to describe the selection process,
> contradicts other words used to describe the same process; namely, mindless, unguided,
> undirected and unintelligent.

You've been given examples of non-random processes that are unguided.
Why do you ignore those?

> And I'm saying the concept of "non-random," despite other valid stipulative meanings,
> except invalid pro-teleology stipulations, always retains its anti-teleological meaning
> within the Darwinian episteme (review initial paragraphs in the refutation; and review
> last sentence in the refutation).

"Darwinism" (by which I take it you mean modern biology) makes no
statements, for or against, teleology, which is not a scientific concept.

> You seem to be forgetting the fact that the adjectives under examination can have more
> than one valid meaning, except, of course, a pro-teleology meaning or stipulation.
> Again, review my refutation where I account for multiple valid meanings of any given term in question.
>
> Thus, as per the adjectival descriptions of mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent;
> and per the collective set existing within the anti-teleological view of the Darwinian episteme,
> natural selection is, in fact, a chance or random process.

You've confused natural selection with word selection. Natural
selection is random or not depending on its actual operation in the
world. You have to look there and not in your personal dictionary.

> The fact does not harm any stipulative meaning of "non-random" except pro-teleology stipulations
> which are falsified by the anti-teleological episteme itself.
>
> Moreover, the "non-random" description is NOT taken from the causation component of natural selection,
> but from the effect component of organization or order. Thus the random or chance nature of the selection
> process, per the other descriptive terms, is further supported and established.

No doubt, contingency affects the survival of individuals, so there's
some randomness, but the overall effect of natural selection isn't
random at all.

> Ray
<snip/>