Re: Steven & Mark: Faith has an object

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:23 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip


You've stated this many times, but never produced a single example of
any scientific conclusion of such. I've also provided an explanation
why this claim is not logical.


Before the rise of Darwinism, science accepted Paley's "Argument From
Design" (1802) as its reigning paradigm.

Paley's "argument from design" was a philosophic and religious work, not science, and not everyone accepted Paley's claims. It was never a scientific "paradigm".

So, you still haven't produced a single example of a scientist who reached this conclusion.


Only the 160 year old schism of Darwinism denies said logic
based on said observation.
There has never been any observation of a designed object being produced
by an 'invisible designer'. If you feel this is incorrect, please
provide an example.


Re-read above answer.

The above provides no examples of scientists accepting "design = invisible designer".


Since Darwin was an Atheist we have an
explanation.
Darwin was not an atheist, nor was many of the scientists who accepted
evolution. "Darwinism" is not a "schism" of science, but an application
of science. Science didn't change when Darwin published.


Science did an about face after Darwin published, and it only took
15-20 years to complete. Before he died in 1882, Darwin witnessed
science show the Paley the door.

No, science remained the same. Paley was never "in" the door to be shown out. Paley's claims were religious, not scientific.


You are totally ignorant about the history of science.

Then why is it you are stating falsehoods? If you really think that Paley's philosophy is science, you are more lost than I thought.




It is so powerfully obvious that it has been
accepted by many theists. It says nothing about first causes.
Acceptance of material causation instead of Divine casuation refutes
the claim that said Theists are Theists;
False again. Again, you assume that God can't use "material causation"
for no good reason.
A Deity most certainly could, based on imagination, but there is no
source saying that one did.
Except the evidence. Why do you need a "source" for this, rather than
accepting what the evidence tells us? Do you need a "source" to tell
you that when you drop a hammer, it falls?


Unless you have a source, one's views concerning God are subjective
and made up.

Ray, where do you think your "source" got it's views concerning God? All views regarding God are subjective, and everyone must make up his or her own mind about God.

Traditionally a source is literary, but another human
being or school of thought could also be a source.

Which is just as "made up" as anyone else's. Your own claims are entirely subjective, and without any evidence to support them.


As far as physical evidence is concerned, the same says reality owes
its existence to Intelligence, which confirms the literary claims of
the Bible. See how that works?

I see how "the same" is a subjective opinion, which is not supported by evidence. The literary claims of the Bible are not supported by the evidence, nor is there any substance to the assumption that "reality owes it's existence to Intelligence".


In addition, Materialism says and means
that God does not exist, that is why material causation is
postulated.
Even if "materialism" say that, science doesn't use materialism, but
methodological naturalism. Material causation is all that can be
observed, therefore science must "postulate" material causation, or not
be scientific.

Individuals may, according to their own beliefs, or conscience
believe that God uses material causation as his means of creation.

Yes, but they have no source for this view, either in the objective
claims of evolution or the Bible.

The "claims" of evolution are not relevant, it's the evidence for evolution that matters. The Bible does not state that God could not have used "material causation". So, there is no "source" for your claims either.

Again, you are incapable of
understanding the basic and accepted concept of objective and
subjective criteria.

I'm not the one arguing that subjective opinion is "fact", that's you. Your own beliefs are not "basic" or "accepted" by anyone else.



You
can also claim that God uses "divine causation" which looks just like
material causation. However there is no evidence for that assumption,
and it's unscientific.


False.

Nope, it's true. See how bad you are at this?


Material causation explicitly says Divine causation does not exist,

Not if the Divine uses material causation.

that is why material causation is accepted.

Material causation is accepted because it's the only causation we observe. There is no other causation that has been observed.

Divine causation means
phenomena reflects Divine power and intelligence, not the
characteristics of unintelligent material phenomena.

Where do you get these odd definitions? Do you just make them up on the spot and expect anyone to take you at your word?? Divine causation is another way of saying "by magic". The "characteristics" of material phenomena is anything we see, because it's all produced by material phenomena.


Your
understanding is a conflation and entanglement of two distinct
causation views. The belief that Divine causes material, once terms
are defined in a objective manner, like I have just done, renders said
conflation subjective and false.

Ray, your twisted beliefs, and bizarre logic renders nothing. You've never explained in a rational manner why the Divine can't use material processes. There is no "conflation", you just don't want to admit your own beliefs are subjective, and factually false.


What is the term to describe the belief that Divine causes material?

"Faith".

Am I saying there is none? No, I am not. It is called Deism.

Deism is a belief that some form of deity exists.


What is the term to describe the belief that Theists believe that
Divine causes material?

It's called "Act of God".

To my knowledge there is none.

Not surprising, as your knowledge is hardly encyclopedic. What you don't know about theology would fill thousands of volumes.

That is why Theists who believe Divine
causes or initiates material is a prime example of subjectivity and
corruption or massive ignorance.

Or, you are wrong. Just because you are ignorant of theology does not mean I'm wrong. Here's such an example by James Moore:

http://www.campbellsville.edu/jmoore/sci-rel.htm

Here's another,

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods.htm#a



Your belief that natural processes operate without God is what is truly atheist ideology.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods.htm#e

A nontheistic interpretation of neo-Darwinism views the process of evolution as being not designed by God, using matter not created by God, driven by only chance and selection that were not guided by God. {an example: biology teachers (in NABT) claim evolution was "unsupervised"} But these claims are theological, not scientific, and a theistic interpretation can disagree by viewing the evolutionary process as being designed by God, using matter created by God, and (at least sometimes) guided by God.
Scientifically, theistic evolution agrees with conventional neo-Darwinism, but theologically (with its theistic interpretation of neo-Darwinian natural process) it is a theory of divine creation.
In most fields of science — ranging from the physics of rain to the chemistry of embryological development and physiological operation — there are no theological criticisms of scientists who accept naturalistic theories that propose "only natural process." Theistic evolution just extends this general acceptance into another area.


Your claim is that the Bible says that God used "divine causation"
but that's not an explanation, it's just a belief.

It's a true and correct belief based on what the Source says and its
correspondence to observational reality.

However there is no correspondence with "observational reality". The "source" you claim is only your interpretation of the Bible, and not agreed on by many Christians. You are confusing your own beliefs with what the Bible says.



Since God can
potentially do anything, "divine causation" is unfalsifiable, and
untestable.

But the Source tells us what He did, as opposed to "anything".

The "source" is again, your own belief. It's not supported by any physical evidence. Other Christians disagree with your interpretation, and your opinions.

Divine
causation is falsifiable: evolution claims that biological reality
does not owe its existence to Divine causation,

Again, that's not true, no matter how often you assert it. Evolution says nothing about divine causation. It's the evidence that demonstrates that life is material in nature.

but perpetual material
causation with no interruptions by the supernatural.

Again, you are confusing how science works, with what evolution says. If there are any "interruptions by the supernatural" it's beyond the ability of science to determine.

There is no way to falsify the idea that a divine being created everything by magic, and made it look exactly like natural processes. The creation stories in Genesis, if you are foolish enough to present them as science, can be falsified, and indeed have been. But the idea that God used "Divine causation" cannot be falsified.


There is no evidence that God used "divine causation" and
plenty of evidence that material causation happened.


The observation of "breathtaking design" (Dennett 1995) in nature and
organisms is prima facie evidence of Divine causation.

As explained over, and over, and over, the appearance of design is not evidence of either a designer, or "divine causation". It's merely an unsupported assumption.


[Note: Dennett believes the same was not the product of Divine
causation, but material causation or natural selection.]

Which goes to show that this appearance of design is not evidence of a designer or "divine causation". Natural selection has been observed. Material causation has been observed. It's much more logical to ascribe the appearance of design to processes that have actually been observed.


So, you can either believe, as atheists do, that God does not exist,
or you can accept the belief that God uses material causation. Or, you
can reject science entirely, and believe that God uses magic, and it's
beyond human understanding. Again, it's your choice.



and you have misunderstood:
Divine causation is not referring to First Cause but causation in real
time or "mechanism".
What "mechanism" is that, Ray?
Since I placed it in quote marks I am using "mechanism" as a frame of
reference to say that "mechanism" is direct Divine power.
How is "direct Divine power" manifested, and how do we test for this
claim? Was it a "poof"? Was there a choir of Angels? Did God use
any sound effect at all?


This will be evidenced and explained in my forth coming paper.

Ray, don't you ever get tired of hiding behind this mythical paper? Just admit, you have no idea, or any hope of getting one.


Like the
beaks of finches, they oscillate in size and shape in reaction to
weather and environmental conditions;
The beaks of individual finches....

I didn't say a word about "individual finches" therefore your comments
and arguments that follow, in their entirety, is based on a
misunderstanding or straw man.

Ray, the only way that the changes in the beaks of the finches could be considered an "oscillation", or "intelligent design" is if the beaks on the individual bird's heads changed. Otherwise, it's a excellent example of natural selection operating on a population.

If you didn't mean individual finches, then your claims are entirely absurd.




.... do not "oscillate" in size and shape.
It's the population of finches who have different size beak sizes that
rise and fall in "reaction" to the environment. Individual organisms
don't change, it's populations over time.

the same phenomena reflects
intelligent design.
Actually, the changing of alleles (such as beak size) in a population
over time reflects evolution. In fact, it's the definition of evolution.


Where is evidence that evolution oscillates, Dana?

Ray, evolution is change. It doesn't matter to evolution what that change is. The population of finches' beaks did not "oscillate" but changed in response to the population pressures. When the environment changes, populations change. It doesn't matter to evolution which way the changes go. You seem to be assuming that evolution has a direction, and a goal. It does not.




Oscillation phenomena indicates and is better explained to be the
product of intelligent design.

Again, it would make more sense for the beak of the individual birds to change, rather than for the allele frequency in the population to change if you are assuming "intelligent design". In the situation the Grant's observed, the birds that had the "wrong" size beak died. If the change had been big enough, the entire population may have died out. How is that an "intelligent design"?


An "intelligent design" would have been for the individual finches'
beaks to be able to change due to environmental conditions, rather than
for short beaked finches dying in droughts, leaving large beaked finches
to pass on their genes, and for short beaked finches to outcompete large
beaked finches during rainy years. The Grants observed the latter, not
the former.


This is how I stated this earlier. You seem to have ignored it then, as I expect you will ignore my explanation now.




Do you have a better explanation?
Yes. As observed, the beak sizes in the population changed as the
population changed, due to natural selection favoring one size or shape
of beak over any other. There was no "oscillation" of beak sizes in
the individual birds.

We have never
heard of "oscillating evolution" LOL!
Who is the "we" here, and just because you do not understand how
evolution works, that doesn't mean that the concept of change in a
population over time does not exist.


Once more: show me evidence that evolution is accepted to oscillate.

Once more, evolution is change. It doesn't matter to a population what the previous population did. Evolution does not have a long term goal. It doesn't have a direction. It's change in a population over time.

If small beaks provide an advantage now, small beaks will be favored. If a few years later, large beaks offer an advantage, the population will reflect that. If the environment changes, back to favor small beaks, then the population will reflect that as well.

Your comment above says this is how evolution has always worked.

Yes, that is exactly how evolution works. There is no reason to expect environments to remain static, and favor only one particular trait all the time.

Maybe
you are mistakening evolutionary dead ends or trial & error or
attempting to sneak oscillation phenomena into these just mentioned-
long accepted results of evolution.

I'm not sure what "mistakening" means. Evolution operates by trial and error, and there are plenty of dead ends, which is another indication that "intelligent design" is not seen in nature. "Oscillation" is what one would expect with a changing environment, and is what is seen in evolutionary change.

An "intelligent design" would have produced either an "all purpose" beak size, or a changeable beak design, not situations where a significant part of the population dies off when under environmental pressure.







It seems you have assumed that Divine causation
means First Cause. False. It means it accomplishes what you think
natural selection accomplishes.
Natural selection can be observed. When has "divine causation" ever
been observed?
I never said that we have.
So, why are you claiming it to be a better explanation than what has
been observed?

I said that we see its effects or products
in reality.
So, you are assuming what has never been seen, rather than accepting
what has been seen to produce the same thing. Doesn't that strike you
as irrational?


Self-evident distortions.

So, if they are "self evident", you should be able to point them out. What "distortions" are you asserting?



I said Divine causation is concluded for based on the observation of
design.

What you say, and what is true are not normally the same thing. You admit that "divine causation" has never been seen, yet you claim it's "concluded for" based on observations, which actually match what is produced by natural processes. How is this possibly a rational conclusion?




And NS has never been observed in real time as it happens.
Quite false. Natural selection can be observed in populations quite
easily. The Grant's study you distorted above was one such case. So is
the famous Peppered Moth study. Another can be seen here:


Nope, it is inferred after the alleged the fact.

How is observing something in real time 'inferred after the alleged fact"? Do you admit that the population of the peppered moths did change?




And Peppered Moths is the most debunked evolutionary crap of all time
with the possible exception of certain human evolution fossil hoaxes.

No, the peppered moth studies have not been "debunked". Creationists have tried to cast doubt on the studied, but have never been successful.


You are pathetic.

So, why not face the truth, Ray? Calling names and running away from evidence doesn't support your claims.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/lessons/lesson4/act2.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/index.html
See alsohttp://dev.smm.org/buzz/blog/hyperspeed_natural_selection_observed

Even "conservipedia" says:
"creationists accept that natural selection is a real, observed, process."http://www.conservapedia.com/Natural_selection


Let it be known that Dana is in agreement and citing unnamed
Fundamentalists.

Yes, because the point is that even Creationists accept natural selection. I am fully aware that these fundamentalists, like yourself, don't accept evolution.


Creationism does not accept material causation to explain the
existence of species.

Yet natural selection is accepted by Creationists. Your claim that creationists don't accept natural selection is falsified.




Stop equivocating.
It's very clear that I'm not the one equivocating.

NS is inferred after the alleged fact.
No, natural selection can be directly observed, and has been.


You are mistaken, it is inferred to have occurred.

Like all observations require a certain amount of inference. It's been observed just as much as anything can be observed.


Evolution
has a serious reputation problem and this is one reason why.
Again, it's not evolution that has the "reputation problem". Evolution
is accepted by a wide spectrum of religious beliefs, and even those with
none. Evolution is a respected scientific theory, and is supported by
a wealth of evidence. Creationists are not respected by any legitamate
scientists, only by the ignorant, or by ideologues.


no answer, Ray?




Creationism says species owe their
existence to special creation.
Without any evidence to support that claim.
Except the observation of breathtaking design and intricate organized
complexity seen in every aspect of nature and individual organisms;
Which, as explained is an opinion, not evidence. The appearance of
design is not evidence of a designer, and the "organized complexity" can
be produced by natural processes. Therefore making such claims does not
meet the standard of evidence.

the same corresponds to the work of invisible Designer.
That is an unsupported assumption.

It still remains unsupported.


Based on these
observational facts we rightfully deduce that species owe their
existence to special creation or direct Divine causation as depicted
in Genesis.
Except that it's not a conclusion from the evidence. It's an assumption
that was pre-determined, and is not affected by all the counter
evidence. There's no evidence of "special creation" and you have
admitted yourself that it's never been observed. Even if you concluded
"special creation", there's no evidence that it matches the Genesis
creation stories, better than the Norse, or the Egyptian, or the
Sumerian creation stories.



What is your explanation for species, nature, its design and organized
complexity?
Species are the result of mutation and selection acting on populations
over time. This has been directly observed. The appearance of design
is the result of natural selection in which efficient and useful forms
are more successful than inefficient forms.

"Organized complexity" is the natural product of system interaction,
where organisms compete for finite resources. An "intelligently
designed" system, one would expect to be simple, rather than complex.



Differential reproduction?
Differential reproduction is only part of the mechanism of evolution.



LOL!
What do you find risible about this? One can observe differential
reproduction, and natural selection, and observe the results of such.
Differential reproduction, combined with artificial selection has
produced modern corn from teosinte in only a few thousand years.

It's produced hundreds of dog breeds from wolves, in a similarly
short time. It's produced cattle breeds, disease resistant wheat,
dozens of varieties of food crops. Differential reproduction has been
observed to produce new species of insects in just a few hundred
generations. Why do you doubt it's ability to produce biological
diversity in nearly 4 billion years?

I'm disappointed that you ran away from this evidence as well. I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed.




Atheist nonsense.
Why would this be either atheist, or nonsense? You mock what you
can't, or won't try to understand.



Creationism rejects any type of
evolution or natural selection (= material causation) to explain the
existence of species.
Which is why creationism is not science. Evolution and natural
selection have been observed. Magic has not.
False.
No, what I said was true.



Evolution is inferred after the alleged fact.
Evolution has been directly observed. I've provided you with many
examples. Why do you ignore them?

The same is much too
slow to see in real time.
Except that it's not. Some species have very short generational times,
and evolution can be observed in such populations.

Material things have cannot produce a better
or more complex material things.
What support do you have for this assertion. Note that evolution
doesn't require things to be "better" or "more complex", just that they
change. "Better" is a value judgment, and begs the question of "better
for whom"? Stock breeding has definitely produced animals that are
better for milk production, or leaner meat, or higher egg production.
This was accomplished without any divine intervention.

Crystals such as salt grains grow without any divine intervention.
Snowflakes form without any supernatural being manufacturing them.
Hurricanes form, and grow without any spiritual guidance. All of these
material things become more complex without any divine influence.

Human beings are different from our chimpanzee cousins, but they
aren't more complex. Individual Slime mold cells have been observed to
at times act together to become a multicellular organism, which arguably
is more complex. Again this is without divine intervention.

This was originally an Atheist idea.
No, it was a concept drawn from nature. It can easily be observed that
material objects can, and do become more complex without God intervening.

Once again, you ignore the evidence, and run away.




It is false on its face.
I've given you several examples above. Can you show how those examples
are false?

It would be a miracle for any material object
whether living or inanimate to be able to continually produce better
and more complex living things.
As pointed out above, it's trivially simple to provide examples of
"material objects" doing just that. Why do you claim, against all
sense, and examples, that it's not possible?

Atheists have assigned them selves God-
like powers.
Exactly how does the ability of living things to grow and reproduce, and
to evolve, grant any "God like powers" to atheists, or any other human
beings?

snip what Ray's has ignored.

DJT

Ray

Once again, Ray has ignored much evidence that contradicts his claims. Obviously Ray hasn't the stomach for a real discussion.


DJT








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... unguided material causation. ... Except that Dawkins would agree that not all changes are evolution. ... happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence. ... the appearance of design only indicates it looks like it was designed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Timberwoof accuses ID theory of failing to do what it did NOT set out to do.
    ... can sometimes determine the MODE of causation of some object under ... Mode of causation is NOT an explanation of an event, ... object's or event's mode of causation (design, law, or chance). ... The rest is evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Trying to Falsify a non-scientific theory?
    ... horizontal causation, Mind not involved). ... that this "mastermind" is trying to make it look like evolution. ... material causation" operating in biological reality. ... nested hierarchy phenomena is an illusion; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: General Evolutionary Discussion
    ... observation of design is asserted to correspond to an antonym: ... evolution, and it has to explain the evidence better than the theory of evolution does. ... conclude both phenomena corresponds, and is best explained, to be the ... former, that is, the latter proves causation is Divine and not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)