Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@farmerman,

Quote:

So we then rotate back into Discovery Institute propoganda.(Either you are wondrously ignorant of its "wedge documents" or else you blend totally within their way of thinking.) Wither way, you dont seem to be guilty of doing any independent thinking on this

I didn't notice the discovery institute connection I just blend into there way of thinking. the person who wrote the original article about algorithms that the EVOLUTION NEWS
& SCIENCE TODAY was criticizing is from IST Austria.

Quote:

About IST Austria
The Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria) is a young international institute dedicated to basic research and graduate education in the natural and mathematical sciences, located in Klosterneuburg on the outskirts of Vienna. Established jointly by the federal government of Austria and the provincial government of Lower Austria, the Institute was inaugurated in 2009 and will grow to about 90 research groups by 2026.

The governance and management structures of IST Austria guarantee its independence and freedom from political and commercial influences. The Institute is headed by the President, who is appointed by the Board of Trustees and advised by the Scientific Board. The first President of IST Austria is Thomas A. Henzinger, a leading computer scientist and former professor of the University of California at Berkeley and the EPFL Lausanne in Switzerland.

I do not know these people's or the institutes' views on ID.

I am just trying to honestly interpret the data. To me there is enough of a pattern in the data to suggest we should contemplate the possibility that natural evolution is an algorithm running in a self replicating operating system that appears to be writing new code as part of the purpose behind the algorithm and the operating system. It appears to be a very large and complex system (possibly universe wide in size) that takes into account a vast number of variables to account for environmental changes and then program in the appropriate changes (that appear to us as evolution to higher complexity).

Both the SDLA: the "Sheer Dumb Luck" Algorithm, and the IDA Intelligent Design Algorithm appear to be valid interpretations if considered by reasonable intelligent people. You and I and a vast majority of the world are reasonable and intelligent people. Most intelligent people are not atheists. That does not mean IDers or atheists are wrong or stupid, it means they interpret the data differently.

Why are you so scared of different, that you would favor a minority view that excludes (a different but equally reasonable majority view) by controlling research and education?

2 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

What makes you think an algorithm must have an intelligence or a purpose behind it?

Because every algorithm introduced in recorded history does. I am assuming logically that the pattern follows in prehistoric times. I have nothing that suggests otherwise except that the older the algorithm the harder it is to identify the person behind it.

Quote:

Quote:
We use the sophisticated and technical word "algorithm" and it sounds like something created in the mind of a genius to run computer programs, but it's not a formula that must be followed, it's simply a description of how things are.

I think algorithms have to be only as sophisticated as they need to be, and is a very simple term to define and understand. Our minds are developing algorithms when we learn not to touch a hot stove as a toddler. You are correct algorithms that a toddler develops about hot stoves are simply the child learning how things are which is learning truth.

Quote:

In a computer, the programmer makes the rules, in the real world, the rules are the laws of nature. Of course your position is that God made the rules. So we're in exactly the same place and the algorithm analogy adds nothing to the argument

I nor the child learning about the hot stove think the algorithm is an analogy. I am living in an operating system running an algorithm. I am interpreting it, and like everyone else with intelligence, (including you) writing my own algorithm as I learn.

What makes you think the operating system running the algorithm you are living in is an analogy instead of reality?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Discovery Institute is a master at "quote mining" articles and letters nd then picking out paragraphs and or blending them together to sort of quietly imply tht Other organizations "Independently" champion their own views. Its a trick , cynically used.

Quote:

I am just trying to honestly interpret the data

.
Why does "pattern" automatically invoke "intelligence"?
mandelbrot equations construct pattern but have been turned into graphics in order to seek out and understand natures patterns. (QUITE complex oft times). Our job is often to seek out "patterns" and sequences where they help us to interpret . Before there was RNA and DNA to excite pattern seeking, there were phyllosilicate (clay) minerals ll having the same double layered structure of hydrated silicates and metal ionic silicates and silica based substances themselves, as well as mineral crystals and protein "ladders" crystals.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Why are you so scared of different, that you would favor a minority view that excludes (a different but equally reasonable majority view) by controlling research and education?

What research could possibly you propose with an ID view? Its all been decided at the get go. Usually what happens (AND IT HAD HAPPENED ) when a religious POV dominates a purely scientific one, is that the scientific data is "MINED" to only support the religious (Read,ID) view, and all other views are discarded or belittled.

To claim that your ID view promotes "Reasonableness in your above, would be laughable if it werent so serious . Picture all the reigning opinions of Creqtion /ID wordlviews

1We can define specified information qand Irreducible complexity, thus saying that a (GOD) has enetered the picture

2Discovery Institute ties a worldview of "Godless inhumanity" to non IDers.
3EVolution is driven by an intelligence and you spend an inordinate amount of time wasting looking for it. Then the remaining "research" is more or less "Wasted" on denial of aspects of science that dont agree with your "settled science" of a mind behind whatever it is you believe

4Evolution is "micro" which, for some argument out of absurdity, makes sense to your club members

5 There are hundreds of other ID points which create a block in continuing any research based purely upon discovery and , instead, focus wholly on research based upon "cherry picking" of stuff that supports ID only.
Real science takes it all in qnd absorbs it all. The most recent is how the hypothesis of Irreducible complexity was so easily dismissed by a bunch of scientists nd grad students helping a court case.
The fact was that irreducible complexity wqs a created concept that stuck out of Dr Behes mind as a way to DISPROVE method naturalism nd natural selection.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Discovery Institute is a master at "quote mining" articles and letters nd then picking out paragraphs and or blending them together to sort of quietly imply tht Other organizations "Independently" champion their own views. Its a trick , cynically used.

I don't think they are implying the people agree or disagree. They are saying you can interpret the data to support ID.

All reasonable interpretations are valid no matter who presents them, wouldn't you agree?

Or, are you prejudiced against certain people or belief systems presenting their interpretations of the data?

Quote:

Our job is often to seek out "patterns" and sequences where they help us to interpret .

I agree.

Are you open to discussing all reasonable interpretations?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I don't think it's a matter of being scared but rather aware. If you're not aware of cancer it's to your detriment.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

What goes off on Chrismass besides horsey racing??

Just a local group that rents racetrack time when it's cheap - like Christmas time.

How about the granddaddy of irreducable complexity (abiogenesis) for a debate? Can we please skip all the trivia of 'building blocks of life', Miller-Urey, etc. and get the the core of arriving at the minimal DNA code (or RNA if prefered) required to enable a self reproducing organism capable of evolution?

The damn slow boat from Germany is making every possible stop before dropping off my b-day present. Now in mid N. Atlantic.

What'd you get for Christmas?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

All reasonable interpretations are valid no matter who presents them, wouldn't you agree?

Present evidence to corroborate the "reasonable" interpretation and Ill agree to agree . Till noow, no separate credible evidence supports a purely ID view. Discovery Institute, back in 2003 promised us all sorts of evidentiary papers and other scientific research. Its 2018 tonight and DI has been very quiet for 15 years about this pledge to us.

Im open minded to consider such things as panspermia or sequential abiogenesis because we have NO CREDIBLE evidence to deny them. The big problem with ID, in my view, is that whatever evidence arguments they make, like irreducible complexity , hqve been shown to be wrong, same thing with the "argument from complexity".

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

1We can define specified information qand Irreducible complexity, thus saying that a (GOD) has enetered the picture

2Discovery Institute ties a worldview of "Godless inhumanity" to non IDers.
3EVolution is driven by an intelligence and you spend an inordinate amount of time wasting looking for it. Then the remaining "research" is more or less "Wasted" on denial of aspects of science that dont agree with your "settled science" of a mind behind whatever it is you believe

4Evolution is "micro" which, for some argument out of absurdity, makes sense to your club members

5 There are hundreds of other ID points which create a block in continuing any research based purely upon discovery and , instead, focus wholly on research based upon "cherry picking" of stuff that supports ID only.
Real science takes it all in qnd absorbs it all. The most recent is how the hypothesis of Irreducible complexity was so easily dismissed by a bunch of scientists nd grad students helping a court case.
The fact was that irreducible complexity wqs a created concept that stuck out of Dr Behes mind as a way to DISPROVE method naturalism nd natural selection.

That's your answer to why you think ID must be kept out of the debate and research.
1. Seems reasonable.
2. Aren't IDers allowed to interpret all the scientific data? You want to discrimnate by world view? (Please answer this question because you are painting yourself as an atheistic bigot right now.)
3. Nothing that happened millions or billions of years ago based purely on interpretations of circumstantial evidence is hardly settled. Time is hardly an excuse for not investigating all possibilities. I have never said the atheistic point of view should not be pursued. Why can't the opposite be true?
4. microevolution by random drivers is possible and could be argued is proven as settled science. Evolution, micro and macro is settled science. Macroevolution to higher complexity and new species by random drivers is hardly settled science. That is where the research needs to be done. In Quantum biology. We need to better understand how the hardware and the operating system is executing the algorithm. And, where did the hardware, the operating system, and the algorithm come from?
5. I read that court case, and the judge did not rule on the science, he ruled on some made up precedent that teaching ID is state supported religion. He argued if you are christian and support ID you are forcing a religious view. The problem is if there is a creator there is only two religions that I know of that offer up a single person as a candidate, Christianity and Lucifer. All others refer to a non personal intelligance that is probably a collection of all of the intelligence in the universe (including ours).

We use science to identify who did things in the ancient past all the time. We can do that by examining and interpreting the historical and scientific evidence. Both sides can have there prejudices (and should admit to them) but neither should be bigots. It appears to me, (and you, Sentanta, Krumples, and cicerone keep proving my point) the IDers were the bigots in Galileo's time, and the atheists are today.

Quote:

The fact was that irreducible complexity wqs a created concept that stuck out of Dr Behes mind as a way to DISPROVE method naturalism nd natural selection.

Natural selection was created by Darwin to remove intelligence from evolution. He did not understand algorithms and information theory. Irreducible complexity is being brushed aside by a lack of understanding in quantum biology and the underlying structure of matter and space which will bring in multiple layers of complexity, that need to be there, to explain why we have the nuclear forces, gravity, and constants necessary for evolution to even be able top operate in a coherent way.

Can you explain why the atoms in DNA or all matter don't fly apart?

Can you explain why gravity holds you to this planet?

Why is the fine structure constant the number that it is.

Please answer those three questions otherwise irreducible complexity is being explained away by ignorance, like the Roman Catholic Church did to Galileo.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The fact was that irreducible complexity wqs a created concept that stuck out of Dr Behes mind as a way to DISPROVE method naturalism nd natural selection.

Well I agree the discovery institute has proven to be a bunch of light weights when it comes to providing innovative new ID theories. I see better ones on Ancient Aliens on the history channel than in their literature. (If there is a God would He be considered an alien?)

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

I guess I don't understand why you want to add layers of complexity to a very simple question . " Is there a God? "
There is no evidence for or against. It comes down to belief.

3 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

I guess I don't understand why you want to add layers of complexity to a very simple question . " Is there a God? "
There is no evidence for or against. It comes down to belief.

That's a very good point.. but maybe it's our understanding of this thing we term as "God" that gets in our way.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

This is hilariously inept. Because you choose to see your environment in such terms does not constitute evidence that it is so. You challenge this member to refute your algorithm bullsh*t without having established that it is a valid analogy.

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

In all this religious hubbah is it possible something tried to steal the word and run away with it? Wouldn't that give it a lot of power? I mean.. just crazy talk.

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

I guess I don't understand why you want to add layers of complexity to a very simple question . " Is there a God? "
There is no evidence for or against. It comes down to belief.

Henry Ford built the model T and the entire ford motor company. If you look at the Ford motor company does it tell you something about Henry Ford?

If there is a God, and he built the universe, Does the universe tell you something about God in a similar way that the ford motor company tells you something about Henry? (or the pyramids, or stone hedge, or anything that has order and we can observe today including the entire universe) I believe because of what the universe tells me when I interpret the data. I believe Henry built ford, I believe someone built the pyramids and Stonehenge. I believe Someone created the universe for similar reasons. Do you believe Henry built ford and somebody built Stonehenge and can you discuss it scientifically?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

OK, I'll bite. How many definitions can there be? To most of the Western World, "God" is the Supreme Being; Omniscient, Omnipresent, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Usually this refers to the Judeo-Christian God, but can also be a more generalized version. That is the "God" I say isn't there.

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

OK, I'll bite. How many definitions can there be? To most of the Western World, "God" is the Supreme Being; Omniscient, Omnipresent, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Usually this refers to the Judeo-Christian God, but can also be a more generalized version. That is the "God" I say isn't there.

Read my prior post... you have to go back.. to origins and a time of magic.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

[quoteHenry Ford built the model T and the entire ford motor company. If you look at the Ford motor company does it tell you something about Henry Ford?

If there is a God, and he built the universe, Does the universe tell you something about God in a similar way that the ford motor company tells you something about Henry? (or the pyramids, or stone hedge, or anything that has order and we can observe today including the entire universe) I believe because of what the universe tells me when I interpret the data. I believe Henry built ford, I believe someone built the pyramids and Stonehenge. I believe Someone created the universe for similar reasons. Do you believe Henry built ford and somebody built Stonehenge and can you discuss it scientifically? ][/quote]

Brian, this is the "creation must have a creator argument". You just used different terms. It's all been hashed out ad nauseum. You're not adding any new information. However strongly you insist that it MUST be so, you're not providing any evidence.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is hilariously inept. Because you choose to see your environment in such terms does not constitute evidence that it is so. You challenge this member to refute your algorithm bullsh*t without having established that it is a valid analogy.

Don't refute me. Refute my interpretation of the data and the interpetation of the scientists from the article in EVOLUTION NEWS
& SCIENCE TODAY who are from IST Austria. Their interpretation is not much different than mine. Can you do that systematically and logically without calling me or them names?

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

jerlands wrote:

TomTomBinks wrote:

OK, I'll bite. How many definitions can there be? To most of the Western World, "God" is the Supreme Being; Omniscient, Omnipresent, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Usually this refers to the Judeo-Christian God, but can also be a more generalized version. That is the "God" I say isn't there.

Read my prior post... you have to go back.. to origins and a time of magic.

Let me explain an ancient story.. seth creates a coffin and promises it to anyone whom it fits..

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know