Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Terms of Engagement?
180 views
Skip to first unread message
MarkE
Dec 31, 2019, 9:55:03 PM12/31/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
The tension arises in deciding when, if ever, a gap becomes a gulf. Ultimately that’s a personal decision of course.
It must be acknowledged that science has made (and continues to make) incredible progress in modelling observed phenomena. So anyone claiming the appearance of a ‘gulf’ should provide evidence contrary to this trend. The evidence I would cite (and have previously; samples below) are ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life. This does not constitute proof by any means, but it demonstrates a potential sustained trend in the ‘gulf’ direction.
I’ve probably been guilty of in the past of overstating the notion typified by Dawkin’s assertion that Darwin allows you to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. Darwinism surely gave modern atheism a credibility boost, but it turns out there were intellectually fulfilled atheists before 1850 :). So there’s no showstopper presumed here. No-one is going to be compelled to believe in God or no God by evidence and argument alone.
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically increased over that time?
I’d call this a ‘gulf’, and a pointer to supernatural agency. But you might say, no, let’s keep looking, no need to invoke the divine. It’s a personal choice, based on a complex and often unconscious set of factors.
When I do street evangelism, many people say, “Science has proven there’s no need for God.” I’m under no illusion that creationist counter-arguments won't by themselves win anyone over. But they can open up some people to consider that rumours of God’s death may be greatly exaggerated.
Given the hypothetical above, I think many people would respond by acknowledging intelligent design as a possible rational explanation. And many others would not. Which God or gods you may then consider, if any, is another question again.
---------------------------
Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
“DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
“Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition, this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.”
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity
“According to Neo-Darwinian theory, major evolutionary changes occur as a result of the selection of random, fortuitous genetic mutations over time. However, some researchers say this theory does not satisfactorily account for the appearance of radically different life forms and their rich complexity, particularly that observed in vertebrates like humans.”
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/related-reading
“Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542
“New research published in 2017 has discovered that the tail system is far more complex than thought 50 years ago. The front design is vital to transmit information to distant parts of the tail to enable it to function as an effective unit for steering and propelling the sperm to its end goal.[i] The system works by complex elasto-hydrodynamics that we can only briefly outline here. Each tail is programmed to produce slightly different movements in order for the sperm to reach the egg.”
http://www.theoriginoflife.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=628:sperm-tail-is-far-more-complex-than-thought&catid=81&Itemid=108
“Recent studies have identified many exceptions to the widely held view that signal sequences are simple, degenerate and interchangeable. Growing evidence indicates that signal sequences contain information that specifies the choice of targeting pathway, the efficiency of translocation, the timing of cleavage and even postcleavage functions. As a consequence, signal sequences can have important roles in modulating protein biogenesis.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919958
One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
The tension arises in deciding when, if ever, a gap becomes a gulf. Ultimately that’s a personal decision of course.
It must be acknowledged that science has made (and continues to make) incredible progress in modelling observed phenomena. So anyone claiming the appearance of a ‘gulf’ should provide evidence contrary to this trend. The evidence I would cite (and have previously; samples below) are ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life. This does not constitute proof by any means, but it demonstrates a potential sustained trend in the ‘gulf’ direction.
I’ve probably been guilty of in the past of overstating the notion typified by Dawkin’s assertion that Darwin allows you to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. Darwinism surely gave modern atheism a credibility boost, but it turns out there were intellectually fulfilled atheists before 1850 :). So there’s no showstopper presumed here. No-one is going to be compelled to believe in God or no God by evidence and argument alone.
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically increased over that time?
I’d call this a ‘gulf’, and a pointer to supernatural agency. But you might say, no, let’s keep looking, no need to invoke the divine. It’s a personal choice, based on a complex and often unconscious set of factors.
When I do street evangelism, many people say, “Science has proven there’s no need for God.” I’m under no illusion that creationist counter-arguments won't by themselves win anyone over. But they can open up some people to consider that rumours of God’s death may be greatly exaggerated.
Given the hypothetical above, I think many people would respond by acknowledging intelligent design as a possible rational explanation. And many others would not. Which God or gods you may then consider, if any, is another question again.
---------------------------
Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
“DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
“Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition, this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.”
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity
“According to Neo-Darwinian theory, major evolutionary changes occur as a result of the selection of random, fortuitous genetic mutations over time. However, some researchers say this theory does not satisfactorily account for the appearance of radically different life forms and their rich complexity, particularly that observed in vertebrates like humans.”
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/related-reading
“Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542
“New research published in 2017 has discovered that the tail system is far more complex than thought 50 years ago. The front design is vital to transmit information to distant parts of the tail to enable it to function as an effective unit for steering and propelling the sperm to its end goal.[i] The system works by complex elasto-hydrodynamics that we can only briefly outline here. Each tail is programmed to produce slightly different movements in order for the sperm to reach the egg.”
http://www.theoriginoflife.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=628:sperm-tail-is-far-more-complex-than-thought&catid=81&Itemid=108
“Recent studies have identified many exceptions to the widely held view that signal sequences are simple, degenerate and interchangeable. Growing evidence indicates that signal sequences contain information that specifies the choice of targeting pathway, the efficiency of translocation, the timing of cleavage and even postcleavage functions. As a consequence, signal sequences can have important roles in modulating protein biogenesis.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919958
Ernest Major
Jan 1, 2020, 3:25:02 AM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 01/01/2020 02:49, MarkE wrote:
> Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
>
> “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
"our DNA likely encodes thousands of previously unknown proteins with
> Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
>
> “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
unknown functions" is a claim that is not supported by the observed
described in the article. The null hypothesis would be that out of frame
translation is an error. Overlapping genes do exist, but genes
overlapping for most of their length doesn't strike me as particularly
plausible. However this is testable - firstly if a stretch of DNA codes
for two genes it's going to be more highly conserved, and secondly the
out of frame reading will lack termination codons. We've got sequenced
genomes - this is testable.
>
> “DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> “DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
>
> “Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition, this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.”
> http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity
>
You shouldn't be appealing to the complexity of modern day organisms as
> “Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition, this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.”
> http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity
>
an argument against abiogenesis. Nor is appealing to the
Rube-Goldbergish nature of organisms an convincing argument for design.
Take duons. Give the use of regulatory sequences (which not have been a
characteristic of the earliest organisms) it is to be expected that
mutation will on occasion transform a piece of an intron, or even of an
exon, into a binding site for a DNA binding protein. And in some cases
this will be beneficial to the organism.
--
alias Ernest Major
MarkE
Jan 1, 2020, 6:25:03 AM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 5:55:02 PM UTC+9:30, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 01/01/2020 02:49, MarkE wrote:
> > Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
> >
> > “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
>
> "our DNA likely encodes thousands of previously unknown proteins with
> unknown functions" is a claim that is not supported by the observed
> described in the article. The null hypothesis would be that out of frame
> translation is an error. Overlapping genes do exist, but genes
> overlapping for most of their length doesn't strike me as particularly
> plausible. However this is testable - firstly if a stretch of DNA codes
> for two genes it's going to be more highly conserved, and secondly the
> out of frame reading will lack termination codons. We've got sequenced
> genomes - this is testable.
> >
> > “DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
>
> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
> >
> > “Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition, this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.”
> > http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity
> >
>
> You shouldn't be appealing to the complexity of modern day organisms as
> an argument against abiogenesis.
Yes, care is needed with that. Which is why I gave an order of magnitude margin to my estimate minimum viable genome size. However, the prebiotic processes and intermediate forms of abiogenesis must in the end produce a free-living cell, and for that reason it's an essential point of reference.
> On 01/01/2020 02:49, MarkE wrote:
> > Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
> >
> > “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
>
> "our DNA likely encodes thousands of previously unknown proteins with
> unknown functions" is a claim that is not supported by the observed
> described in the article. The null hypothesis would be that out of frame
> translation is an error. Overlapping genes do exist, but genes
> overlapping for most of their length doesn't strike me as particularly
> plausible. However this is testable - firstly if a stretch of DNA codes
> for two genes it's going to be more highly conserved, and secondly the
> out of frame reading will lack termination codons. We've got sequenced
> genomes - this is testable.
> >
> > “DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
>
> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
> >
> > “Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition, this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.”
> > http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity
> >
>
> You shouldn't be appealing to the complexity of modern day organisms as
> an argument against abiogenesis.
RonO
Jan 1, 2020, 9:05:03 AM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>
> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>
> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
should have a different perspective than utter denial.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
Links to the IDiots Top Six.
Ron Okimoto
MarkE
Jan 1, 2020, 9:50:03 AM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
> >
> > One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
>
> You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
> something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
> everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
> only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
> learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
>
> Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
> perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
> just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
> information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
> scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
> from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
> the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
> should have a different perspective than utter denial.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
> Links to the IDiots Top Six.
Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
> On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
> >
> > One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
>
> You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
> something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
> everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
> only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
> learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
>
> Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
> perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
> just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
> information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
> scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
> from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
> the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
> should have a different perspective than utter denial.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
> Links to the IDiots Top Six.
Bill Rogers
Jan 1, 2020, 10:15:04 AM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
> > On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > > When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
> > >
> > > One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
> >
> > You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
> > something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
> > everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
> > only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
> > learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
> >
> > Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
> > perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
> > just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
> > information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
> > scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
> > from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
> > the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
> > should have a different perspective than utter denial.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
> > Links to the IDiots Top Six.
>
> Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
Ron certainly knows some science that could be relevant, but lots of people have suggested he modify a tone that, to put it mildly, makes communication difficult, and I'm pretty sure he won't. "IDiocy," "rubes," "perps," "scams" and the like are his schtick, and he's schitcking to it.
> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
> > On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > > When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
> > >
> > > One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
> >
> > You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
> > something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
> > everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
> > only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
> > learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
> >
> > Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
> > perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
> > just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
> > information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
> > scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
> > from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
> > the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
> > should have a different perspective than utter denial.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
> > Links to the IDiots Top Six.
>
> Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
Mark Isaak
Jan 1, 2020, 1:15:04 PM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/31/19 6:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>
> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
I must agree with Ron that you don't improve the validity of an argument
> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>
> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
simply by changing the name of a key term.
> The tension arises in deciding when, if ever, a gap becomes a gulf. Ultimately that’s a personal decision of course.
>
> It must be acknowledged that science has made (and continues to make) incredible progress in modelling observed phenomena. So anyone claiming the appearance of a ‘gulf’ should provide evidence contrary to this trend. The evidence I would cite (and have previously; samples below) are ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life. This does not constitute proof by any means, but it demonstrates a potential sustained trend in the ‘gulf’ direction.
>
> I’ve probably been guilty of in the past of overstating the notion typified by Dawkin’s assertion that Darwin allows you to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. Darwinism surely gave modern atheism a credibility boost, but it turns out there were intellectually fulfilled atheists before 1850 :). So there’s no showstopper presumed here. No-one is going to be compelled to believe in God or no God by evidence and argument alone.
>
> Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically increased over that time?
>
> I’d call this a ‘gulf’,
Consider this thought experiment: What if, after another 50 years of
research, scientists unanimously declared that they could find no way of
reconciling gravity and quantum mechanics? Do you think we should then
declare that the two are supernaturally separated? Or should we
continue research into fundamental physics, perhaps with new and better
tools?
> and a pointer to supernatural agency. But you might say, no, let’s keep looking, no need to invoke the divine. It’s a personal choice, based on a complex and often unconscious set of factors.
> Given the hypothetical above, I think many people would respond by acknowledging intelligent design as a possible rational explanation. And many others would not. Which God or gods you may then consider, if any, is another question again.
never *been* an explanation. It is a personal belief that people with
little faith try to justify using less science. The fact that it
explains nothing is its most attractive selling point. Otherwise people
would need to question how it works and discover that it doesn't.
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
producing complexity. Every time you see the word "complex" applied to
biology, your first thought should be "naturally evolved."
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor
RonO
Jan 1, 2020, 1:20:04 PM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 1/1/2020 8:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
>> On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>>>
>>> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
>>
>> You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
>> something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
>> everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
>> only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
>> learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
>>
>> Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
>> perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
>> just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
>> information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
>> scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
>> from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
>> the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
>> should have a different perspective than utter denial.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
>> Links to the IDiots Top Six.
>
> Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
You put the IDiocy aside and actually learn something instead of wallow
> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
>> On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>>>
>>> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
>>
>> You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
>> something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
>> everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
>> only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
>> learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
>>
>> Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
>> perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
>> just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
>> information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
>> scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
>> from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
>> the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
>> should have a different perspective than utter denial.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
>> Links to the IDiots Top Six.
>
> Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
in the denial that is all you have ever gotten from the ID perps.
The ID perps have given you their Top Six. The Scientific creationists
used to use the same arguments to get the rubes into denial mode. That
is all the anti evolution faction have used the Top Six for. No
creationist has used them to build any type of reasoned alternative.
You could be the first, but you'd likely have to have more integrity
than the guys that have fed you the junk for decades. That level of
integrity seems to be in short supply among IDiots. Not a single one
would help Dean out. Why is that? These are the Top Six, so why run
from them?
The Top Six are bits of science and you can learn something from them,
but all you want is the denial. You will never get to where you want to
go on that route. What have you ever accomplished wallowing in denial?
Take the Top Six and learn something about nature and determine if the
denial is worth lying to yourself about.
Ron Okimoto
RonO
Jan 1, 2020, 1:25:04 PM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 1/1/2020 9:10 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>>>>
>>>> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
>>>
>>> You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
>>> something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
>>> everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
>>> only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
>>> learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
>>>
>>> Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
>>> perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
>>> just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
>>> information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
>>> scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
>>> from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
>>> the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
>>> should have a different perspective than utter denial.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
>>> Links to the IDiots Top Six.
>>
>> Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
>
>
> Ron certainly knows some science that could be relevant, but lots of people have suggested he modify a tone that, to put it mildly, makes communication difficult, and I'm pretty sure he won't. "IDiocy," "rubes," "perps," "scams" and the like are his schtick, and he's schitcking to it.
It really doesn't matter. Anyone so deeply in denial that they can
> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2019 8:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>>>>
>>>> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
>>>
>>> You are consistently using the God of the Gaps stupidity. Calling it
>>> something else is stupid on top of stupid. You still have to ignore
>>> everything that you could learn from what surrounds the gaps. It is the
>>> only way that the god of the gaps stupidity works. If you actually
>>> learned something from what we do know you wouldn't bother with the gaps.
>>>
>>> Just do this exercise. Take the Top Six pieces of science that the ID
>>> perps claim supports IDiocy and learn something from them. The ID perps
>>> just use them as denial arguments, but they are bits of scientific
>>> information that you could learn something from. Build the best IDiot
>>> scenario from the Top Six instead of looking at the holes and running
>>> from what you can understand. Building something is the last thing that
>>> the ID perps want to do with the Top Six, but an honest creationists
>>> should have a different perspective than utter denial.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/oaQ_93yyq0Q/3VU_5yVCAwAJ
>>> Links to the IDiots Top Six.
>>
>> Ron...put aside the "IDiocy" diatribe and meaningfully engage with the argument. I'm convinced you have more to offer.
>
>
> Ron certainly knows some science that could be relevant, but lots of people have suggested he modify a tone that, to put it mildly, makes communication difficult, and I'm pretty sure he won't. "IDiocy," "rubes," "perps," "scams" and the like are his schtick, and he's schitcking to it.
ignore the reality of the ID scam obviously is too far gone for calling
IDiocy something else. How long has the bait and switch been going
down? No one denies it since Nyikos quit lying about it.
IDiocy is even worse than idiocy at this time, so they should be glad
for small favors. Look at how Mark is running from the Top Six. They
aren't my Top Six. They came from the ID perps. He can call the ID
perps whatever he wants to, but he is still running from the junk.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
Jan 1, 2020, 4:00:03 PM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
MarkE wrote:
> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>
> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
Bill has addresses most of your points in the same way I would have had,
> When using scientific evidence in the origins debate, I think a lot of frustration is the result of different assumptions about the structure of the argument and the terms of engagement. Here are some ideas on this (not abandoning my OOL thread btw, just wanting to give this topic some prominence).
>
> One way to summarise my own perspective is as a tension between what I’d call GOD-OF-THE-GAPs vs GOD-OF-THE-GULFS. The former is to prematurely identify a gap in naturalistic explanations as evidence of for supernatural agency, when simply more time and research is needed to find a naturalistic hypothesis. The latter is to identify a gap in naturalistic explanations which, over time, is resistant to plausible naturalistic hypotheses. I use the term “gulf” to refer to cases where the gap appears to be actually deepening/widening as scientific understanding increases.
so take me simply as in agreement with him.
One comment though on the "gods of the gulfs". I'd say that is based on
a (possibly common) misunderstanding what the problem with the "god of
the gaps argument" is. I don't think it is (necessarily) a fallacy in
the logical sense. Neither did it originate as a challenge by atheists
against natural theology (though for some strange reason some tend to
embrace it that way). Rather, it is a theological argument made by
Christians against a particularly bad heterodoxy.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it most succinctly: "We are to find God in what
we know, not in what we don't know".
If you believe in an immanent deity, intimately connected with his
creation, the very idea to base him on something we don't know is highly
problematic. The size of he gap isn't the problem. The problem is to
look for god only in the gaps, or as Charles Coulson said: "Either God
is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all."
If you hold a mainstream Christian belief, the gods of the gaps is
heretical - size of the gap doesn't matter. And conversely, if you have
a different theology to start with, the GoG challange is no concern for
you, again regardless of the size of the gap.
Though to be honest, that type of deity sounds just a wee bit
Moorcoftian. ("they were the acolytes of of the unknowable god, uthixo
wezithuba, the god who lurks in the gaps. It is said you can hear is
whispers in his abandoned creation, or notice a fleeting shadow at the
edge of your eyes, to disappear as soon as yur gaze tries to focus on
it.") (cf"weeping angels")
Bill Rogers
Jan 1, 2020, 8:35:03 PM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill Rogers
Jan 1, 2020, 8:45:03 PM1/1/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 9:55:03 PM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
<snipping to focus on something I missed>
> When I do street evangelism, many people say, “Science has proven there’s no need for God.” I’m under no illusion that creationist counter-arguments won't by themselves win anyone over. But they can open up some people to consider that rumours of God’s death may be greatly exaggerated.
I think it's a serious mistake to counter that with God of the Gaps, er Gulfs. Once you concede that if there's a naturalistic explanation for things, then God is irrelevant to them, you've already lost the battle. And as more things keep getting explained, you'll keep fighting a losing rearguard action.
So just don't concede in the first place - God is immanent in everything, in the things we understand and the things we don't understand yet, that His importance is in giving meaning to things, not in accounting for how they operate physically.
>
<snip>
<snipping to focus on something I missed>
> When I do street evangelism, many people say, “Science has proven there’s no need for God.” I’m under no illusion that creationist counter-arguments won't by themselves win anyone over. But they can open up some people to consider that rumours of God’s death may be greatly exaggerated.
So just don't concede in the first place - God is immanent in everything, in the things we understand and the things we don't understand yet, that His importance is in giving meaning to things, not in accounting for how they operate physically.
>
<snip>
MarkE
Jan 2, 2020, 9:40:03 AM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
MarkE
Jan 2, 2020, 10:30:03 AM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On the other hand, we probably can't detect God "sustaining all things", i.e. keeping the strings vibrating or whatever that might entail. However, we may infer design by analysis of physical laws and application of probability etc.
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Jan 2, 2020, 10:45:03 AM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 01/01/2020 02:49, MarkE wrote:
> > Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
> >
> > “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
>
> "our DNA likely encodes thousands of previously unknown proteins with
> unknown functions" is a claim that is not supported by the observed
> described in the article. The null hypothesis would be that out of frame
> translation is an error. Overlapping genes do exist, but genes
> overlapping for most of their length doesn't strike me as particularly
> plausible. However this is testable - firstly if a stretch of DNA codes
> for two genes it's going to be more highly conserved, and secondly the
> out of frame reading will lack termination codons. We've got sequenced
> genomes - this is testable.
> >
> > “DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
>
> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
When have evolutionary biologists ever correctly described the physics and mathematics of evolution? Elmer Phud admits he doesn't consider the mechanisms of genetic transformation when he draws his clades. Do you think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for DNA?
> On 01/01/2020 02:49, MarkE wrote:
> > Examples of ongoing upward revisions in the complexity of life (and therefore greater difficulty for naturalistic explanations)...
> >
> > “Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
>
> "our DNA likely encodes thousands of previously unknown proteins with
> unknown functions" is a claim that is not supported by the observed
> described in the article. The null hypothesis would be that out of frame
> translation is an error. Overlapping genes do exist, but genes
> overlapping for most of their length doesn't strike me as particularly
> plausible. However this is testable - firstly if a stretch of DNA codes
> for two genes it's going to be more highly conserved, and secondly the
> out of frame reading will lack termination codons. We've got sequenced
> genomes - this is testable.
> >
> > “DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
>
> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
Mark Isaak
Jan 2, 2020, 11:15:03 AM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 1/2/20 6:39 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 3:45:04 AM UTC+9:30, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> [...]
> On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 3:45:04 AM UTC+9:30, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> Intelligent design has never worked as an explanation because it has
>> never *been* an explanation. It is a personal belief that people with
>> little faith try to justify using less science. The fact that it
>> explains nothing is its most attractive selling point. Otherwise people
>> would need to question how it works and discover that it doesn't.
>
> For ID to "work" as an explanation, what would it need to do? Provide details of how God created the laws of physics, space-time, matter, energy, and life?
That would be nice, but it need not go that far. It would be enough if
>> never *been* an explanation. It is a personal belief that people with
>> little faith try to justify using less science. The fact that it
>> explains nothing is its most attractive selling point. Otherwise people
>> would need to question how it works and discover that it doesn't.
>
> For ID to "work" as an explanation, what would it need to do? Provide details of how God created the laws of physics, space-time, matter, energy, and life?
it said something testable about any significant mechanisms. Details of
how God created a bacterial flagellum would be a good start. Have you
noticed that, currently, ID says nothing about ID?
Mark Isaak
Jan 2, 2020, 11:20:03 AM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I think you missed Bonhoeffer's and Coulson's point.
Ernest Major
Jan 2, 2020, 12:30:03 PM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 02/01/2020 15:42, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
>> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
> When have evolutionary biologists ever correctly described the physics and mathematics of evolution?
They do better than you do.
>> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
>> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
> When have evolutionary biologists ever correctly described the physics and mathematics of evolution?
> Elmer Phud admits he doesn't consider the mechanisms of genetic transformation when he draws his clades. Do you think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for DNA?
don't think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for the genome; instead
I think that using genetic code to refer to the genome is an incorrect -
an error even more blatant the equating junk and non-coding DNA.
--
alias Ernest Major
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Jan 2, 2020, 12:50:03 PM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 02/01/2020 15:42, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> >> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
> > When have evolutionary biologists ever correctly described the physics and mathematics of evolution?
>
> They do better than you do.
Is that so? Where is the reptifeatharian description of the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You reptifeatharian dumb-clucks can't even correctly describe the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug-resistance and why cancer treatments fail. You are harmful bunglers.
> On 02/01/2020 15:42, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> Evolutionary biologists have been telling people for decades that a
> >> blueprint is a bad metaphor for DNA.
> > When have evolutionary biologists ever correctly described the physics and mathematics of evolution?
>
> They do better than you do.
>
> > Elmer Phud admits he doesn't consider the mechanisms of genetic transformation when he draws his clades. Do you think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for DNA?
>
> The genetic code is the mapping from codon to amino acid residue. I
> don't think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for the genome; instead
> I think that using genetic code to refer to the genome is an incorrect -
> an error even more blatant the equating junk and non-coding DNA.
Anything you reptifeatharians don't understand you call junk. Perhaps that is why the reptifeatharian understanding of evolution is junk-science. When are you reptifeatharians going to take an introductory course in probability theory and learn something about stochastic processes (like DNA evolution)? You may call yourself Major but you don't even make it into the minor league.
> > Elmer Phud admits he doesn't consider the mechanisms of genetic transformation when he draws his clades. Do you think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for DNA?
>
> The genetic code is the mapping from codon to amino acid residue. I
> don't think that genetic code is a bad metaphor for the genome; instead
> I think that using genetic code to refer to the genome is an incorrect -
> an error even more blatant the equating junk and non-coding DNA.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
Jan 2, 2020, 1:50:04 PM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
what can we learn from this to do something like ti too - One of the
many reasons why religion and naturalistic causal reasoning don't mix well.
Bill Rogers
Jan 2, 2020, 2:35:03 PM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>However, we may infer design by analysis of physical laws and application of probability etc.
I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that when you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you were not motivated primarily by deep-seated frustration at the lack of progress in research on the origin of life.
Glenn
Jan 2, 2020, 3:45:03 PM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that when you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you were not motivated primarily by deep-seated frustration at the lack of progress in research on the origin of life.
>
Does Mark express "deep seated frustration" at the lack of progress? And how do you know that Mark had an experience such as you describe. Just wondering why in the hell you asked the question.
> I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that when you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you were not motivated primarily by deep-seated frustration at the lack of progress in research on the origin of life.
>
MarkE
Jan 2, 2020, 7:25:03 PM1/2/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That said, I want to acknowledge the quality of Bill's responses here over time. In my experience, he consistently engages with the topic at hand, with experience, insight and eloquence, at times challenging me to sharpen my thinking and knowledge.
Burkhard
Jan 3, 2020, 7:20:03 AM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
take this reading of Hebrew 1:3a then the "gods of the gaps" argument
is simply not available for you, you can't consistently believe in God
revealing himself positively in all creation (which includes the parts
we can describe through science), and making an argument that is based
on our absence of knowledge for specific parts of the world.
Mind you, while this is a particularly blatant self-contradiction,
"positive" versions of the argument from design suffer from the same
problem. Paley's watchmaker e.g. would lead you to the inference that
God only created biological things, and most certainly not pebbles,
which is heterodox to say the least.
One of the reasons why Karl Barth wrote so forcefully against all
natural theology (though for him it's main problem is that it is
literally un-Christian in the sense that it decenters the Incarnation as
Gods final and perfect revelation)
<snip>
MarkE
Jan 3, 2020, 9:30:04 AM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)
However, I'm talking about a specific definition of detectability by science, namely the observation or inference that established natural laws have been broken.
Öö Tiib
Jan 3, 2020, 10:20:03 AM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes in that book serpents talk and people turn into pillars of salt
and sticks turn into snakes and rainbow is magical and guy
travels for a week in bellow of whale and so on. Also wife of my
sonless dead brother must loosen my shoe and to spit in my face
in public if I refuse to marry her in addition to my own wife to set
me free of that obligation. Searching truths that haven't been
written into book allows you to miss the wisdom that *is* written
there.
> However, I'm talking about a specific definition of detectability by science, namely the observation or inference that established natural laws have been broken.
Fact of more than 95% of natural laws being unknown does not
mean these have been broken.
Burkhard
Jan 3, 2020, 6:20:03 PM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Lee, Michael Jeehoon. "The Taming of God: Revealed Religion and Natural
Religion in the Eighteenth-Century Harvard Dudleian Lectures." The New
England Quarterly 83.4 (2010): 641-673.
It's open access:
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/tneq_a_00046?casa_token=EIW7HBkSLEkAAAAA:5TNXL7MJeo8-l-R-GmlEJdDzpG4eUGG3mvHe-KuH_tq4BBLa3vzbop4-vJxcC5o9ZCThW6fAW538
It describes how religion got "naturalized" almost by accident - and I
found the title, Taming of God, particularly apt for this endeavor
Bill Rogers
Jan 3, 2020, 6:40:03 PM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Jan 3, 2020, 6:55:02 PM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Burkhard
Jan 3, 2020, 7:05:03 PM1/3/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
active (and I have a paranoid number of cookie blockers and session
delete schedules), so it should not know that I also have an
institutional subscription. But you are right, it also says access
provided by UoE, sorry and mhhh
Burkhard
Jan 4, 2020, 1:55:03 PM1/4/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
testifies to the glory of god, then looking for him in the gaps is
neither necessary nor possible, which is exactly my (and Barth's, and
Bonhoeffer's) point.
>
> However, I'm talking about a specific definition of detectability by science, namely the observation or inference that established natural laws have been broken.
First, that would simply show that our theory that stipulated that law
> However, I'm talking about a specific definition of detectability by science, namely the observation or inference that established natural laws have been broken.
was wrong - or do you claim omniscience for scientists? Second, nobody
has shown that even a stipulated well confirmed law was broken.
Robert Camp
Jan 4, 2020, 5:50:02 PM1/4/20
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 1/2/20 7:25 AM, MarkE wrote:
allow application of physical laws and probability calculations. It
happens all the time in disciplines like forensics, archeology, etc.
It is not at all reasonable (or even methodologically defensible) to
suggest that the same - i.e., "...may infer design by...", applies to
supernatural speculation.
0 new messages