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?