Creating Information Naturally, Part 1: Snowflakes, Chess, and DNA

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

quote=“Ashwin_s, post:86, topic:38275”]
I don’t know anyone who would include miracles in the process of evolution and still call it evolution…

Sorry I can’t digest that.
[/quote]

@Ashwin_s,

We don’t call it Evolution. We qualify the term… just like thousands of non-profit groups do when they develop a new concept.

God-Guided-Evolution is even “self-explanatory”. Your alternative, Old Earth Creationism, is patently inappropriate. So if this is the best you can do… I would say it is not good enough to qualify yourself to discuss science with me.

Just so you understand: the phrase “Old Earth Creationism” is a qualified definition of what used to be Creationism. Do you walk into their building and tell them you won’t recognize the use of the phrase… because Creationism (before the rise of Geology) ALWAYS meant 6 days of Creation?

Here’s a list of qualified terminology used by Philosophers regarding categories of knowledge and logic:
Analytic-synthetic distinction
Descriptive knowledge
Epistemic modal logic
Inductive inference
Inductive probability
Intelligence
Metaknowledge
Philosophical skepticism
Procedural knowledge

Would you tell them they have it all wrong… none of these words can be qualified to mean something new?

Or how about these terms, qualified to mean something new and specific:

A priori and a posteriori knowledge
Experience
Empirical evidence
Experiential knowledge
Explicit knowledge
Extelligence
Libre knowledge
Procedural knowledge

Or this typology:
Common knowledge
Domain knowledge
Metaknowledge
Mutual knowledge
Self-knowledge
Traditional knowledge
Traditional ecological knowledge

Mannn… the Definition Police are really going to have full jails after they are done with these folks…

P.S.

What fools these people are, right @Ashwin_s

They are using these words in ways completely different from how the constituent terms
are defined… and they think they are accomplishing something … if only you had been
there early enough to explain to them where they went wrong!

The list below includes all these, and other, influential schools of thought in psychology:

Activity-oriented approach
Analytical psychology
Anti-psychiatry
Anomalistic psychology
Associationism
Behaviorism (see also radical behaviorism)
Behavioural genetics
Bioenergetics
Biological psychology
Biopsychosocial model
Cognitivism
Cultural-historical psychology
Depth psychology
Descriptive psychology
Developmental psychology
Ecopsychology
Ecological psychology
Ecological systems theory
Ego psychology
Environmental psychology
Evolutionary psychology
Existential psychology
Experimental analysis of behavior - the school descended from B.F. Skinner’s work.
Functionalism
Gestalt psychology
Gestalt therapy
Humanistic psychology
Individual psychology
Industrial psychology
Liberation psychology
Logotherapy
Organismic psychology
Organizational psychology
Phenomenological psychology
Process Psychology
Psychoanalysis
Psychohistory
Radical behaviorism - often considered a school of philosophy, not psychology.
Psychology of self
Social psychology (sociocultural psychology)
Strength-based practice
Structuralism
Systems psychology
Transactional analysis
Transpersonal psychology

List of psychological schools

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@pevaquark

Can you have God sending rain in the context of meteorology? Can you have God still influencing the weather to some degree? If not, then why do you reject clear teachings of Scripture that say that it is God who sends the rain? If so, then why can’t you accept that God can be involved in another natural process, the one of evolution?

And that, @pevaquark, is the perfect explanation of what our dear Mr. A refuses to accept.

[Ashwin_s]

@Ashwin_s

With respect to the article you forwarded on how to falsify Darwinism, i will revert back once I have gone through it.

@pevaquark

I read the article you cited. Even the author does not seem sure that evolution can be falsified. It had this big disclaimer and more information about what does not count as a disqualified.
His main theme seems to be the idea that if a trait is seen to appear before the necessary precursors, it would falsify evolution.
I disagree. I can think of a few things that would falsify the following theories of evolution-
Neo Darwinism- If it’s established that random mutations cannot bring the novelty required for speciation/development of new classes. That would put this theory into question.
Common descent- If it’s proven that the first life consisted of several types of single cell organisms that “evolved” from the pre-biotic soup. It should falsify common descent.

However both the above scenarios would fail to falsify the larger view of evolution… But then … Is it worth calling it a theory. Wouldn’t philosophy fit better?

Edit: a trait appearing before the necessary precursors also would not falsify evolution because of the concept of convergent evolution. Theoretically, it would not falsify the overall idea.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Ashwin_s

If it’s established that random mutations cannot bring the novelty required for speciation/development of new classes.

Rats. It seems that there is something lacking here… what could it be? I think I’m going to have to go with the fact that there are a lot of different possible ways to get new function! The good ole random mutation is just one part of many (gene duplication, whole genome duplication, frameshift mutation, ERV insertion, lateral transfer in certain bacteria was it, plus many many more).

@Ashwin_s

Common descent- If it’s proven that the first life consisted of several types of single cell organisms that “evolved” from the pre-biotic soup. It should falsify common descent.

Ashwin- you have to know what goes into to this massive explanatory network of ideas. I have no idea what you are trying to say regarding abiogenesis. Can you clarify? Also, regardless of what happens with abiogenesis, that has nothing to do at all with the very strong evidence for common descent.

I do hope that you can become more familiar with why and how scientists actually came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution accurately describes at least the natural world very well. While I am not endorsing the author of this blog, I think this one has actually a nice article that hopefully makes a little more sense on how to argue against evolution:

Advice for Creationists

@Ashwin_s

I didn’t read it in any "anti evolutionary website. This is my source.

Unfortunately Science Daily can get a little… how shall I say… well they can write ‘pop science’/borderline ‘click-bait’ from time to time. I apologize for my presumption though! Certainly though a proposal of the appendix serving a ‘critical function’ for humans is blatantly false. It is still vestigial for humans in the sense that it serves a fraction of its original purpose! If you do genuinely try to read science papers and well written science books by real scientists then good for you! Consider me impressed. I do apologize for questioning you which I did because your arguments sound word for word like most anti-evolution material that I see.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

Wow… here we are in the very bowels of truth, the inner heart of the non-vestigial
“Appendix” of BioLogos… and what do we read in this thread, circling the drain
while the eyes bleed…

That Evolution is “random” - - according to who? - - disputing with a visiting Creationist
who refuses to engage in any discussion where the premise includes God using
Evolution to create life forms.

Is this some kind of delusional “intra-dimensional” world as depicted by Heironymous Bosch?

.
.
.
Perhaps when birds fly out of my pants somebody will eventually consider how well
we would be served if there was some Mission Statement that defended God’s integral
role in directing the Evolution of Humanity - - as well as all the Evolution of all the
other life on Earth.

Next year! … in Zion.

[GJDS]

@Ashwin_s

I have to admire your persistence, especially on this site that accepts evolution as “ordained” or such expressions.

However I would make two points that may be related to your comments.

1. Biology is probably more complicated that physics and chemistry, and I am not surprised if the current theory of evolution appears inadequate to some scientists, as myself.
2. Intelligence as a way of obtaining a very broad outlook (and I think in neo-platonic thought) has been recognised and invoked for thousands of years. I think ID advocates have made a fundamental mistake in promoting ID as a scientific discipline. Neo-platonic philosophy, when incorporated into theology, ends up with pantheism among other things - so I think ID advocates need to exercise care regarding their outlook/belief wrt Orthodox doctrine.

[Lynn_Munter]

@Ashwin_s

All I said is that I wouldn’t call a process that includes miracles as evolution. I would call it creationism. And I don’t have any problem in believing God does miracles. I think I have mentioned this before also.
Most scientists would gladly agree with this position. Why do you have a problem with it? You yourself admit that science has its limits.
Now if you believe God is involved in evolution as a “purely natural process”, can you describe this involvement? Is it only through laws set up by him?

The literal definition of the word ‘evolution’ is merely something like ‘change over time.’ In biology it more specifically means ‘change in population genepools over time.’ Nowhere in either definition does it specify that the changes have to be random, and indeed they are not random even from a purely naturalistic point of view. Natural selection is the opposite of random, and even mutations are biased in various ways.

Furthermore, I believe many people here subscribe to a view of God that incorporates God’s dominion over what we mere humans see as all the ‘random’ aspects of life. Is there truly such a thing as randomness? And if so, does it belong to God? These questions might help you to parse some of the positions under the Biologos tent.

On another note, I’m pretty sure my toenails are vestigial.

[Ashwin_s]

Hi GDS,

I also see the tendency towards pantheism. However, I think this is more a result of how the materialistic world view is becoming increasingly shown to be wrong by recent discoveries.
If at any point, materialism becomes unfeasible as a worldview, I expect the world to shift to pantheism… and perhaps a few people to deism.
Seeing the ID movement as a “Christian movement” would be an error. Though there are many Christians in it, it’s a bigger tent including people of other religions and even agnostics. And so, it has tendencies to all kinds of philosophies.
I think It’s not yet mature enough to take on any predominant philosophical foundation.

[Lynn_Munter]

@GJDS

I think ID advocates have made a fundamental mistake in promoting ID as a scientific discipline. Neo-platonic philosophy, when incorporated into theology, ends up with pantheism among other things

Hey, you’re sounding like that’s a bad thing! As the resident pantheist, seems reasonable to me …

@Ashwin_s

If at any point, materialism becomes unfeasible as a worldview, I expect the world to shift to pantheism

Now we’re talking!

[Ashwin_s]

Your ideas of randomness are interesting.
In classical physics, very few things are really random. Everything has a chase and effect controlled by natural laws.
In quantum physics, there seems to be no matter (some thing with mass/ a position) without consciousness.
And both are rules that govern the universe.
If evolution works in the realm of classical physics. There is no real randomness. Everything is determined by cause and effect and we end up with a deistic God at best.
As of now, most scientists treat evolution in a purely classical sense.

I would expect some quantum effects to be involved in life sciences for God to be involved with creation from beginning to end as taught in the Bible.
I seriously doubt any evolutionary model can coherently support a theistic God.

@Lynn_Munter

On another note, I’m pretty sure my toenails are vestigial.

Glad to know… I will ask @jpm to remove them and confirm if they are indeed vestigial

[Ashwin_s]

@Lynn_Munter

Now we’re talking!

The reason I said that was not positive… it’s because, I believe human beings are basically sinful/averse to acknowledging God… And so it’s a natural progression…

No offence intended.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@GJDS

Biology is probably more complicated that physics and chemistry, and I am not surprised if the current theory of evolution appears inadequate to some scientists, as myself.

@GJDS

Since Ashwin has declared that Evolution can only refer to the Neo-Darwinist formulation of Evolution…

if a replacement for Neo-Darwinist Evolution were developed that was more adequate, what would we be able to call it, if Ashwin won’t allow us to append qualifiers to the word Evolution?

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

My emphasis was that being agnostic/denying a creator was because the person suppressed the truth as Paul said. So if science actively suppresses the truth of a creator by ignoring it’s possibility or viewing it as outside the boundaries of its interest… It’s not in a particularly nice place.
That’s why he says they are without excuse.

That’s not what is really happening in science. No one is excluding any scientific hypotheses that are based on a creator. The problem is that no one is putting forward hypotheses based on a creator, and that includes the ID crowd. It is the ID crowd that is excluding themselves from the scientific arena because they refuse to do the science to support their ideas. You can hardly blame the scientific community for suppressing science that doesn’t exist.

@Ashwin_s

Besides many (perhaps most) evolutionists would claim the design intuition is a false intuition and spend a lot of energy in proving this in social circles.

Intuitions are not scientific hypotheses. That would be the first problem. For science, what matters is the methodology.

[GJDS]

@T_aquaticus

Intuitions are not scientific hypotheses. That would be the first problem. For science, what matters is the methodology.

I cannot imagine how any scientist could practice his/her discipline without relying on intuition.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

That’s not what is really happening in science. No one is excluding any scientific hypotheses that are based on a creator. The problem is that no one is putting forward hypotheses based on a creator, and that includes the ID crowd. It is the ID crowd that is excluding themselves from the scientific arena because they refuse to do the science to support their ideas. You can hardly blame the scientific community for suppressing science that doesn’t exist.

Actually, we have court judgements that say, any theory that posits a creator is not science by definition.
This happened in a case with respect to ID. As you said, even though they don’t mention a creator directly, and stick tot he idea of a designer, it was concluded that it was not science as the idea was too close to creationism.
So yes, Science suppresses all hypothesis connected to a creator/the possibility of the supernatural within its field of influence by its very nature.

[Ashwin_s]

150 years ago when Darwin postulated his theory, he made the following claims:

Blockquote

1. Individuals within species are variable; 2) Some of these variations are passed on to offspring; 3) In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive; and 4) The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; the individuals who survive and go on to reproduce the most are those with the most favorable variation, and they are naturally selected. It follows logically from these that the characteristics of the population will change with each subsequent generation until the population becomes distinctly different from the original; this process is known as evolution.
   Source
   What are the four postulates presented in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species? - The Handy Biology Answer Book

Blockquote

The modern “theory” of evolution is often explained as below-.

Blockquote
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next
Source:An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
Blockquote

The above modern understanding is unfalsifiable because no methods/mechanisms/models etc are involved.
Even in my discussion in this forum, a couple of people have reverted to this definition. This doesn’t look like an advance over 150 years… it’s a retreat to a very basic statement which cannot be falsified because it doesn’t make any solid claims on methods/mechanism/models(family trees etc) which would lead to falsification of the overall theory.

[T.j_Runyon]

That’s the definition of evolution not evolutionary theory. You can understand evolution as:

1. These thesis of common ancestry
2. Evolutionary theory. The mechanisms and processes that explain 1.
   Both can be disproven.

[T.j_Runyon]

I tend to like these definitions

1. Evolution - the process by which new species emerge as the modified descendants of pre-existing ones.
2. Evolutionary theory- the scientific theory that explains how evolution has and is taking place on earth, with reference to particular, old and current, aspects of life on earth and to particular episodes of its history.