Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: "Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Apr 2006 14:24:33 -0700
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
<snipped>
No it doesn't. We observe plants making use of chemicals in the soil
and using them to grow. That is life from non-life.
If plants don't qualify as "life", then your assertion warrants serious
thought. The "life" is the plant.
Please read what I wrote.
Chemicals in the soil are not living.
When absorbed by the plant, they become part of a living system.
This is life from non-life.
All the atoms which make up a plant come from non-living sources.
It's life originated from a seed,
which originated from another plant. Life from life.
If however, you believe the secret to the "life from non-life" question
resides in the mechanism within the plant, pursue that avenue as far as
it will take you.
It would help if you read what I posted.
2. The simple cannot give rise to the complex.
Completely untrue. One of the findings in the field of mathematics
called complexity theory is that simple algorythms can lead to
extremely complex outcomes. You've probably seen the pretty pictures
this produces.
Well, maybe "simple" and "complex" are the wrong terms.
They are perfectly applicable terms. Simple algorythms give rise to
complex outcomes.
The fact
remains that all the information required to produce those complex
outcomes resides in the simple algorithm.
It doesn't "reside there". The simple algorythm is just that: a simple
algorythm. It produces complex outcomes.
The cause is "greater" than
the effect (I know that's not the best term either).
It's the term you used, and it's demonstrably wrong.
IOW, the effect
can be traced directly to the cause - nothing had to be added.
What on earth has this to do with your assertion that causes have to be
more complex than their outcomes?
If I
understand it right, the principle of causality states essentially that
you can't get something from nothing.
A "principle" which is falsified by experiment in quantum physics.
So it doesn't hold.
i.e. it's a false assumption.
The rise of complex biological
functions must be explained within this framework.
Why? It's a premise which can and has been falsified.
It can't violate the
principle of causality.
The principle of causality says absolutely nothing about the relative
complexity of cause and effect.
3. Intelligent agents are the only known cause of complex specified
information.
As there is no measure of "complex specified information", that is
simply an unsupported assertion.
On the contrary - it's been defined as a measurable quantity by Dembski.
His filter is in use today.
Not by scientists it ain't!
4. All of life is related and shows evidence of common design.
Why should relatedness be evidence of common design? It's evidence for
an evolutionary relationship, but not of a common designer. A designer
can design products which are completely unrelated, share no common
elements, are made of completely different materials, and have
completely unrelated functions.
The fact that all living organisms share some elements is evidence
*against* a designer.
I'm basing this statement on an interesting take on the subject posted
by Kazmer Ujvarosy here:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7489
Well I suggest that you don't rely on such sources for information in
that case. Creationist sources are notoriously unreliable, and the
fact that Kazmer Ujvarosy asserts something does not make it true.
Essentially what he's asserting is a "reverse common descent" from a
complex common ancestor. He calls it a "Scientific Theory of Creation".
It isn't scientific and it isn't a theory.
It's empty assertion.
To be honest, I haven't made up my mind about evolution. There are many
ideas out there which are much more rational than the current one.
Spetner's Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis, Davison's Prescribed
Evolutionary Hypothesis, and Ujvarosy's Scientific Theory of Creation to
name a few.
Untestable assertions are not "more rational" that scientifically
accepted theories. I suggest that you expand your reading beyond
creationist sources.
To be sure, the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection just
doesn't cut it for me.
So what?
To be frank, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. If you want to
pick holes in evolutionary theory, you need to do so in the form of
hypotheses which can be tested against the evidence, not expressions of
opinion and unfounded assertions.
Therefore, life came from an intelligent living source that must
logically be more complex than the sum of all of life's parts.
Well, that's an assertion which can be endlessly iterative, isn't it?
If life came from an "intelligent source", where did that "intelligent
source" come from? Another "intelligent source"? And where did that
other "intelligent source" come from? Yet another "intelligent source"?
This can go on for ever.
Furthermore, there is no justification at all for your assertion that
your "intelligent source" must be more complex than the sum of all
life's parts. Complexity theory shows that this is an unfounded
assertion, and both physical and mathematical systems demonstrate that
it is not true.
So these systems violate the principle of causality?
What on earth has this to do with the principle of causality?
There is no principle which states that causes have to be more complex
than their outcomes.
Furthermore, the "principle of causality" has been falsified.
Read about quantum physics.
--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven
quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard
that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY
MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
"In nature invariably we find that no initial cause ever gives rise to
an effect greater than itself. Nature does not violate the principle of
causality, but the evolutionist delusion does, to no small degree."
Kazmer Ujvarosy - Brainstorms
Why do you use the words of creationists as if they give some authority
to your assertions? They don't.
John A. Davison is no creationist,
He's a supporter of ID.
That makes him a creationist, as ID does not offer any scientific
alternative to evolutionary theory, and is based on the religious
convictions of its proponents. This is why Judge Jones ruled that it
can't be taught as science in schools.
and Kazmer Ujvarosy is not one in the
classic sense either.
So what?
If he makes silly and unfounded assertions such as "no initial cause
ever gives rise to an effect greater than itself" he's flatly and
demonstrably wrong.
RF
--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven
quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard
that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY
MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
"In nature invariably we find that no initial cause ever gives rise to
an effect greater than itself. Nature does not violate the principle of
causality, but the evolutionist delusion does, to no small degree."
Kazmer Ujvarosy - Brainstorms
"One thing for sure: at the heart of the physical universe, at the heart
of the whole shebang, are formulas, exact formulas." Doug Wedel -
Brainstorms
.
- References:
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Prev by Date: Re: Hey, Mr. Geologist
- Next by Date: Re: McCoy's grasp of math is poor.
- Previous by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Next by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
