|
Author
|
Topic: What exactly is ID?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
Okay than, explain how do those patterns show evolution. Because they only make sense in the light of the evolutionary history of the organisms (as inferred from the other evidence). Or a designer who's deliberately trying to mess with our heads (see my post on actualism, above).
And while you're at it, define evolution. You've made how many posts on the topic and you still need evolution defining for you? It's heritable changes in a lineage.
None. Which of the words "WHAT" "NUMBER" "DEFINES" "A" "POPULATION" "TO" "BE" "CALLED" "SMALL"? Those words did not actually appear in the post to which I was replying. But in answer to your question, a population is called small if it is small. I really don't know how to make this concept any simpler. If you wish to know at what point we might expect small size to lead to genetic catastrophe, then in order to answer that, I should require a histogram relating the effect on fitness of mutations to their probability. Ecologists generally use the "50/500 rule" --- an effective (i.e. breeding) population of 50 is needed to avert genetic disaster in the short run, 500 in the long run. But this is just a rule of thumb and varies from species to species.
First, his opposition of "design" to "chance". Does he really know no better? Has he never heard of evolution, or is he ruling it out a priori? There are subtler blunders, but that's the most obvious one. In order to detect design, we need a way of distinguishing things that were designed from the product of evolutionary algorithms (and other mechanisms, such as the random search that tailors our lymphocytes to the pathogens from which they defend us.)
That how do you explain the fact that I have no problem understanding anyone else? I am not at all convinced that this is a fact. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: l
The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that! Whereas observation of reality shows that they don't; and reality trumps what people write down on bits of paper. I know that this flies in the face of the fundamental dogma of creationsism, but such is the case.
Ah, what avails the classic bent,
And what the cultured word,
Against the undoctored incident
That actually occurred? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
You might have wondered why a designer would conceal the evidence of design. And why he faked all the evidence for evolution.
It does seem to me the designer is hidden but science has become sophisticated enough to find some of the evidence hinting of a designer. And yet it seems to scientists that they've found the exact opposite.
Digital information in DNA is one good example. An ... interesting ... statement. If the information had turned out to be analog, would creationists have all given up and gone home? No? Then what's your point?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
It depends on your frame of reference. If you are using the book of Genesis then yes. If you are using history itself, the trend for intelligent design is up for sure! We knew nothing about punctuated equilibrium ... Wrong.
The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. --- Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species ... or irreducible complexity ... Wrong again. Of course biologists have known of the existence of irreducibly complex structures, such as the mammalian middle ear, even before the invention of the word "biologist". Then they discovered from the fossil record exactly how it evolved. And then creationists invented the words "irreducible complexity" and went around pretending that such things couldn't evolve, blithely unaware that that ship had already sailed.
... or CSI ... CSI is "knowledge"? No, it's obfuscation. All Dembski's doing is rehashing the Great Creationist Petitio Principii:
(1) This is complex. (2) Complex things have designers. (3) Therefore this was designed. (4) Therefore this did not evolve. ... where the second premise assumes the thing to be proved. This is not knowledge, it's a logical fallacy. Nor is it new --- steps (1) - (3) are Paley's argument. Modern biology can be dated from the point at which biologists realized that it was wrong.
The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow. At last a prediction from ID! It is false.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). What if? What if? What if? Don't trip. I don't follow you, but then perhaps you don't follow me. Let me clarify my point. If an observation tends to confirm a hypothesis, then the opposite observation would tend to disconfirm it. You claim that the discovery that genetic information is digital lends support to ID. Would the discovery that it was analog have tended to cast doubt on ID, and if so, how? It can't be "heads I win, tails you lose" --- so explain to me how the information being analog would have struck a blow against ID. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science. Wow, he's really laying in to that straw man, isn't he?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:56 PM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
Fine. Start explaining. How do they only make sense in light of evolution. As I have pointed out, this is off-topic. You may either look up my posts on this subject, or start a new thread. P.S: did your mother never teach you the "magic word"?
I do need a definition from everyone because everyone has a different definition. No.
A population is small if it is small? Wow, Einstein, did you graduate at the University of Tautology? You asked: and I really don't see how to break the concept "small" down into more primitive concepts. Did you graduate at the University Of Not Knowing What Small Means?
Okay, now tell me, why do you think this will have any effect of stoping the genetic meltdown at any future point in time when we know that all individuals are mutants? We know that purifying selection operates more efficiently on large populations.
Evolution is an algorithm. It does not produce any CSI. It only transmits it. Let me show you a mathematical proof for that, right out of NFL. First we have a CSI j, and a detrministic natural law denoted by f. Natural laws are described as functions. Simply because they act on a certain variable, and than give the same result every time. Just like 2X + 10 = 20. X will always be 5. In the same way, when you put water under 0C, you will always get ice. So now, you are claiming that this natural law "f", brought about CSI "j", without intelligent cause. That means that there was some element "i" in the domain of "f", that was acted upon by "f" and it brought upon "j". This is represented by the equation => "f(i) = j" This actually does not create new information, since "i" will always produce "j" when acted upon by "f". This simply means that the natural law has shifted the same amount of information from "i" to "j". The problem of where did the CSI come from is not resolved by this. Simply because we have to ask where did CSI in "i" come from? Because that is the same CSI as in "j". It just got shifted around by "f" acting upon it. Now we have this equation: "I(A&B) = I(A) + I(B|A)", let's call it "*". It explains that information in an event A and B equal information in the event A together with information B given that A is certain. Which basicly means that if A happens, B is sure to happen. Therefore, if we see that A happened, that means B happened too. Let us now use this equation in our example. Since we already know that "i" fully determines "j", with respect to "f", that means that "I(j|i) = 0". This means that if know all the information in "i", we will also know all the information in "j", when "f" acts upon "i". Which means that if "i" happens, "j" also happens, and whatever we learn from "i" we also learn from "j". And this means that we can learn nothing more from "j" than from "i". Meaning, information gained is equal to zero. Which means that CSI that was generated is not created by a natural law, it was simply shifted from some other place. All natural laws act like this. Therefore natural laws are precluded from creating CSI. They can only shift them around. This seems rather muddled. Suppose, for example, I have a data set for a case of the Traveling Salesman Problem. I apply some off-the-shelf optimization algorithm such as good old random search, let us say of order 1000. On average, I get out some solution in the top 1/1000 th of possible solutions. Have I gained any "information", according to your criteria? If you answer "yes", then clearly your argument is bogus. But if you answer "no", then it appears that algorithms can solve optimization problems without increasing "information", and your argument does not relate to the question of whether evolution can do what it is claimed to do. It would relate only to the irrelevant question of whether evolution can do something which is unnecessary to the solution of optimization problems.
Well we do have that. It's called the Explanatory Filter. And we also have a reliable mark of intelligence which is CSI, which can not be produced by an evolutionary algorithm. If unsupported assertion was equivalent to evidence, you guys would be home and dry. Creationists are good at unsupported assertion.
Than how do you explain this. As a perfect illustration of the theory of evolution, which predicts less purifying selection for smaller populations. Consider the first article. They attempted to induce genetic meltdown by repeatedly artificially forcing populations through bottlenecks. When the bottleneck was of size 300 or greater, this did not produce genetic meltdown. The second paper, again (using body size as a proxy for low N e) finds "less efficient purifying selection" associated with smaller populations. And the third paper? "The risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals" Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
ID Hides
The book "Signature in the Cell" lists twelve intelligent design predictions! And yes, I see many of them are falsifiable. I choose not to post them ... I wonder why.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
That doesn't seem to be punctuated equilibrium ... That's exactly what punctuated equilibrium means. What in the world do you think it means, and where in the world are you getting your ideas? Here's Stephen Jay Gould, the most prominent modern exponent of P.E:
The process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory[/indent] Or again:
Species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter. --- Stephen Jay Gould, The Flamingo's Smile Is there a hair's-breadth between what he's saying and what Darwin said?
The fact is, it isn't! So do you agree that the fact that it is digital lends no particular credence to ID?
I suspect if the information in DNA was either digital or analog, neo-Darwinists still attempt to explain the devolopment of life. And they would succeed, since experiment shows that evolutionary algorithms work equally well whether the information is discrete or continuous. This is one reason why I am not going around claiming that the fact that it is digital is particularly evidence for evolution. You claimed it as evidence for ID. May I take it that you have now abandoned this position?
And then you accuse Jason Shapiro of a strawman in your next post! Yes. Now, do you have any objection to what I wrote? If you feel that I'm in error, please convict me of it, rather than just implying that it's there.
I picked your post because it was the hardest to refute than the other ones in the past few hours. Not just hard, but apparently impossible. Which is why you've barely made an effort in that direction.
The five of you don't really win the debate against me. Shall we take a vote on that?
You people just wear me out. Trying to maintain creationism in the face of reality must indeed be exhausting. I freely admit that I have a much easier and less fatiguing task. But it's your choice --- you are not obliged to be wrong.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
Why did you fail to post I that saw your point? ... Because that is not what the phrase: "That doesn't seem to be punctuated equilibrium" actually conveyed in that context.
At least one problem with your evolutionary algorithms is that they were "designed" and contained information in the first place. They were not designed. They were copied from nature. If I take a plaster cast of a lobster, did I "design" the result? Now, being sane, I suppose that what can be said about the power of an algorithm that simulates evolution can be said about evolution itself; but if you disagree, perhaps you should write to William Dembski and tell him, 'cos that's the only point in his argument that seems to be correct, and it would be a shame for him to spoil an otherwise perfectly blemished record.
And it shows no matter what the evidence shows, Darwinian conjecture can and will bend and stretch to fit the evidence. That manages to be both a lie and a non sequitur. Well done!
What was missing from your analogy were (1) the steps necessary to make an irreducibly complex structure and (2) the hidden problems of a possible scientific explanation for its evolutionary development. It was not an analogy. For point (1) look up the set of intermediate forms showing the evolution of the mammalian middle ear; and as for point (2) it is not up to me to make your arguments for you. It is you (and Dembski) who have failed to show these "hidden problems". I guess that's why they're hidden. That and the fact that they don't exist.
Not from bias participants. Well, would you claim that your opinion was unbiased?
Another strawman. Creationism does not = ID. That's not what Judge Jones said. Would you like to read over the following two passages and see if you can identify the difference between creationism and intelligent design?
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. --- Of Pandas And People as it was eventually published. Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. --- Of Pandas And People as it was first drafted. You do demonstrate it profically. If I had help from three other ID proponents, I think we would be kicking your ^(&%$ around the moon by now. As a matter of fact, just one would do the job --- if only he was right.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:49 AM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Please explain E. coli
I totally agree with you. That is why the experiments that show genetic entropy ... ... in small populations ...
... trump any notions of evolution. ... in small populations. The very experiment you cite shows that researchers were unable to produce genetic meltdown if the genetic bottlenecks that they repeatedly artificially induced consisted of 300 or more individuals. Thanks for proving that you're wrong, it saves us the trouble.
Yes, we do. We see them in ALL species. Evidence?
No. We do not know how much mutations would they have accumulated. To predict real numbers is not possible, simply because we do not know what was the initial population size. The people who disseminate the fairy-tale of "genetic entropy" have made it clear that they are talking about near-neutral mutations, the fixation rate of which is to a good approximation independent of population size.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
Yes. This is hardly a point on which you are likely to be able to deceive me, since I know many people with whom I am in agreement on the definition of evolution.
I know what small is, but obviously you don't. I know it's a relative term, but you don't. You appear to be lying to me about me. Really, how do you think that's going to work out?
Therefore, you can't say that a population will only be affected by genetic entropy if it is small, because that is a relative term. A population can be small relative to some other population, and large relative to soem other IN THE SAME TIME! Thereofre, genetic entropy affects it without it being small or not. Yes, and I'm the one who said that first. But you obviously didn't get my question straight. I saked you how will increasing the population FULLY HALT genetic entropy, not just slow it down. Obviously it won't, it will just slow it down. The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones. Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.
That's becasue you dn't understand simple mathematical functions. This is a particularly stupid lie to tell to someone who, unlike you, has a PhD in mathematics.
If you got better than average results, than you gained information. But my argument is not wrong, becasue what the algorithm did was simply transmit the information from point A to point B. Has information been gained, or simply been moved about? If it's simply been moved about, then apparently moving information about is all that's required to solve optimization problems, and it is not necessary for evolution to generate information in order to work. If it has been gained, then your argument fails.
And that would aslo mean that you selected a better than average algorithm. But the question arises now, how did you get the algorithm? I said --- "off-the-shelf". Random search is good for any optimization problem. It's one size fits all.
Because the information was not created, it was simply transmited. It's origin is still unclear. Again, if it is possible to solve optimization problems just by "transmitting" information, then apparently this is all evolution needs to do to solve optimization problems.
They can solve problems only if they already have problem specific knowledge embedded in them. If they don't, on average every one of them is as good as the other. My goodness, you really don't understand the No Free Lunch Theorem at all, do you? Well, it's your lucky day, since I explained it in my post #165. Read it over, and if there's anything there you don't understand, get back to me and I'll talk you through it. But until you know what it is, I suggest you stop talking about it, or you will continue to produce inadvertent moments of comedy such as this.
The assumption that only design can produce CSI.
Not in the time the experiment took place. But if it lasted longer, it would have produced that. Your daydreams are not evidence.
Which means that the same thing will happen in larger populations, only more efficiently Exactly. Natural selection is better at doing it's job in larger populations. But better does not mean PERFECT. Genetic entropy still exist, and the end effect is the same. You appear to be repeating yourself, so let me do the same. The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones. Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.
Which again means that smaller populations have more risk of genetic meltdown than larger populations. Not that large populations have NO RISK WHATSOEVER. Technically, I suppose that's true --- since genetic drift is statistical in nature, there's always some risk. But if it's quadrillions to one against, we may for practical purposes neglect it.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Flaws of ID
No. You offered vague assertations. I destroyed all of them by showing you links to real scientific evidence. Are you talking here about the papers you linked to which proved you wrong about genetic entropy?
What can I say, except that drugs have destroyed your mind. That's like asking an evolutionist to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Are you really that drugged up that you don't understand that ID does not deal with the mechanisms of design implementation? I believe he does indeed realize that this is one of the shortcomings of ID. I think that's why he's taunting you with it.
No, I jsut wanted to explain to you that the fossil record does not support you insane notions of evolution. This falsehood is off-topic --- if you wish to be wrong about the fossil record, start a new thread. This thread is for you to be wrong about genetic entropy and to pretend that you understand the No Free Lunch Theorem.
What an unintelligent chance worshipper. I'm not a Christian so all your attempts of trying to be funny are falling flat on their face. And the funny thing is, your religion of evolution came from the old Asian and Native American creation myths where they thought that people and animals were related. So, you are basicly following their religion. You are the religious fanatic, not me. Really, when you tell lies this stupid, how can you expect people to regard you as anything but a clown?
Oh chance worshipper, why are you still here, isn't it time for yout to go and pray to saint Darwin, so he may let you evolve? And again, you're still here? Why aren't you praying? You appear to have been driven literally insane with rage. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: ID Hides
I respect the work of Dr. Meyer and he didn't give me permission to post a gem like that, not that I have been in contact with him. Well, this is peculiar. An ID proponent, who presumably would like nothing more than to convince everyone of intelligent design, has published what you consider to be twelve excellent arguments for ID --- and you won't tell anyone about them because he hasn't personally given you permission to do so? Don't you suppose he wants everyone to know about them?
I haven't been in contact with Wolpert and Macready, but I don't think I need their permission to explain the No Free Lunch Theorem. Nor do I hear you chiding Smooth Operator for telling us what Dembski thinks without (presumably) asking his permission. People publish their ideas because they want them out there. Do you really think Meyer would be angry if his views got a wider audience?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: ID Hides
I don't know if Smooth has taken a series of direct quotes from "Design Inference". I'm not asking you for direct quotes. A paraphrase will do.
Whatever Dembski puts on the net is obviously free information. Actually, no. Copyright law still applies unless it's explicitly waived. But that doesn't mean you can't paraphrase or use "fair use" quotations.
And back to that other post of yours, here is something for you from Fallen below but you won't accept it. You would rather believe the definition from a judge who probably has never read a book on ID before that trial ever began and probably never will. How convenient of you. As a matter of fact, I prefer to look at what ID proponents themselves say. Foe example, Phillip Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement, said on American Family Radio:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. William Dembski, perhaps the most prominent proponent of intelligent design, wrote a book entitled Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. The term "intelligent design" was introduced in its modern sense by Charles Thaxton, the editor of Of Pandas and People, who then went through the draft of his book replacing the words "creation" and "creationism" with the words "intelligent design", and "creator" with "designer". When the Discovery Institute, the main clearing-house for ID, wanted to test whether ID could be taught in schools, their test case was the book Of Pandas And People. Now, if you're going to say that Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, the Discovery Institute collectively, and Charles Thaxton who coined the term "Intelligent Design", are wrong about what ID is ... isn't that rather like saying that J R R Tolkien was wrong about what a hobbit is? It's their phrase. They thought of it first, they have dibs on deciding what it means. You don't get to come along over twenty years later and declare that it really means something else. Let me remind you again. Here's Thaxton's definition of creation:
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. And here's Thaxton' definition of Intelligent Design:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. If you want to talk about something different from what Thaxton is talking about, then I suggest that you call it by a different name. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: ID Defintions
I will show that science apparently wasn't always defined in the same way. Look at this quote from Sir Issac Newton. "Though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet could by no means have, at first, derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy So if Newton was considered to be a leader of the sciences during his time, then I would say science has changed since then. So why can't ID change? Just because Newton was a scientist doesn't mean that everything he wrote was science any more than everything Richard Dawkins says is science. Remember that Newton also wasted much of his life on alchemy and on trying to interpret the prophetic books of the Bible. He also denied the divinity of Jesus. In this case, Newton is just committing the God of the Gaps fallacy: "I can't explain this, therefore no-one can explain this, therefore there is no explanation --- therefore I can explain it, God must have done it by magic." This has never been considered science --- it has always, and will always, be the opposite of science, because it elevates personal ignorance as a source of ultimate knowledge. Now, the fact is that the regularities in the solar system that so puzzled him that he had to give their explanation over to God were in fact given a naturalistic explanation by other scientists using Newton's own theory. So his own bafflement was a blunder or at least an oversight. In fact, in a curious twist, the explanation for these regularities is now so well established that one can find modern creationists claiming that the exceptions to these regularities must have required divine intervention and so constitute proof of a creator. (They're wrong about that, too, but that's another story.) P.S: Have a happy Christmas. Which is also, now I think of it Newton's birthday, so have a happy Newton's birthday too.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 306 by traderdrew, posted 12-24-2009 11:06 AM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2