Materialism

[nick c]

greetings klypp,

Darwin's theory was not an offspring of the uniformitarian paradigm. Quite contrary.

Here we differ. The fact that Lyell taught the immutablility of species, is not the point. I am not questioning Darwin's originality, but he was inspired by Lyell and Hutton.

Charles Darwin, for example, was well acquainted with Hutton’s ideas, which provided a framework for the eons required by the biological evolution he observed in the fossil record. English geologist Sir Charles Lyell, who was born the year Hutton died and whose influential book Principles of Geology won wide acceptance for the Theory of Uniformitarianism....
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources ... utton.html

The fact remains that Darwin put his theory in the context of gradualism. He was under the influence of Hutton and Lyell, that is the uniformitarian paradigm. Darwin set his theory on the uniformitarian stage of slow and inexorable change. The uniformitarian geological paradigm came first and then Darwin put his new theory into that context, even though his own observations told him otherwise.

Darwin tried to get around the problem uniformitarians posed on him by suggesting the fossile records were imperfect.

Again, this is my point...Darwin needed to fit his theory into the gradualist paradigm, because he subscribed to that paradigm. Nobody was stopping him from following the evidence of his own observations to their logical conclusion- that the geological record indicated periods of stability ending in a reworking of the Earth's surface and the sudden appearance of new and different species. Then as now, the alternative was a deity induced catastrophism. Secular catastrophism was, and so today is, not given serious consideration.
The presumption of enormous time gaps in the geological record is an ad hoc addendum necessary to salvage a faulty theory.

The Velikovsky quote you cited (I assume from the V archive?) is not his theory of cataclysmic evolution, though it mentions the possibility of mass mutations. It deals with [url2=http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... ermia.html]panspermia[/url2] and its' possibilities as applied to a Saturn event.

Copies of E in U are available in various libraries, it is worth the effort to find a copy. Evolution is treated extensively. Under the circumstances of planetary catastrophism the biosphere would be bombarded with a variety of radiations and electrical discharges. The protection of the atmosphere and magnetic field could be compromised exposing organisms on all levels to mutagenic forces giving rise to new species. Many of these would be poorly adapted and become extinct, but some would survive and continue to exist in the newly created environment.

Should an interplanetary discharge take place between the earth and another celestial body, such as a planet, a planetoid, a trail of meteorites, or a charged cloud of gases, with possibly billions of volts of potential difference and nuclear fission or fusion, the effect would be similar to that of an explosion of many hydrogen bombs with ensuing procreation of monstrosities and growth anomalies on a large scale.
What matters is that the principle that can cause the origin of species exists in nature. The irony lies in the circumstances that Darwin saw in catastrophism the chief adversary of his theory of the origin of species, being wed by the conviction that new species could evolve as a result of competition with accidental characteristics serving as weapons only if almost limitless time were at the disposal of that competition, with no catastrophes intervening.

Earth In Upheaval, p256

If one accepts a key tenet of the EU, that electrical discharges have shaped the surface of the Earth, than one has to ask what is the effect of these events on the biosphere?

nick c

[klypp]

Then as now, the alternative was a deity induced catastrophism. Secular catastrophism was, and so today is, not given serious consideration.
The presumption of enormous time gaps in the geological record is an ad hoc addendum necessary to salvage a faulty theory.

I've been trying to figure out where we really differ. I think it is here.

Secular catastrophism is given serious consideration today. And Cuvier is now credited for having seen this first.
There is a lot of interest in studying these catastrophic events now. It is an opportunity to study evolution when the steam is really up.
Panspermia is also on the agenda. NASA is involved in several prosjects investigating the possibilities for microbes to survive and travel in space.

But there is nothing in this that contradicts Darwin's theory. Darwin did not put his theory in "the context of gradualism". He showed that it would work under these circumstances. But this doesn't mean evolution cannot work in catastrophic times.

Darwin was well aware of Cuvier and his catastrophe theory. I don't know why he didn't follow this lead. Maybe he dismissed Cuvier because he put this theory in the wrong context (creationism)?
If so, you both made the same mistake...

[webolife]

Darwin most certainly DID put his theory in the context of Lyellian gradualism, aka uniformitarianism.
Cuvier's progressive creationism would not fit with the natural selective process Darwin proposed.
Are you proposing, Klypp, that evolution operates according to a Gould-type punctuated equilibrium model?
If so, what mechanism or evidence do you set forth for rapid radiation of genetic types? Gould never offered a mechanism for this... rather he simply placed this event in the hiatal "missing" strata between fossiliferous layers. In other words, arguing from the absence of evidence. Natural selection actually depends on catastrophic environmental changes for the speciation process to occur. But speciation depends on a mechanism of information loss, whereas macroevolution depends by definition on informaton gain over time. Darwin's natural selection can never produce macroevolution, only variation through inbreeding, and eventually, through "catastrophic" environmental change, the extinction of a variety. And the more time you give it to work, the closer you come to the inevitable extinction of many species. This is why the mechanism of extrinsic genetic mutation is so devastating to evolution as well. In nature, truly cumulative beneficial mutations [yet to be ever observed] are always grossly outnumbered by deletory mutations... the more time you add to this argument, the worse the case becomes.

[bdw000]

One famous argument the "darwinists" would use, goes like this: Miracles break the laws God created.

As far as I see it, Darwinian evolution is the "miracle."

"We don't know" is not a theory. It is commonly called lack of a theory!
It has never been and will never be a scientific solution!

So what? This brings up another problem: the evolution crowd seems to think that no one can critique evolution unless they "have some other theory." Not true: to point out the lack of evidence of a certain point of view is all one has to have in hand. Another strawman argument (in my opinion).

Take care! Even though you say you're not a religious person, you are coming very close to some junk I hear ever too often: "We don't know everything. Therefore God exists!".

Sorry: I could care less about the "god" question. It is totally irrelevant in my opinion. To say that I am "coming very close" to "god exists" is purely your own doing. You sort of validate my post above. You seem to be unable to conceive that there are nonreligious (as in, SCIENTIFIC) complaints against Darwinian evolution.

My interest is strictly from a "philosophy of science" perspective, or, simply, a scientific one. The situation for me with "evolution" is EXACTLY the same as for modern physics and astronomy: there is no evidence for the claims being made. They just take a piece of data, any piece of data, and then claim that it means whatever they want it to mean (without scientific justification), and if anyone disagrees, they are heretics. As far as I am concerned, the evidence for evolution is very similar to the "evidence" claimed for black holes.

The key of course is how anyone who disagrees is demonized, branded a heretic, etc. That is a SURE sign that science has taken a back seat to the proceedings.

From my first post:

I am no Christian, and no friend (nor enemy) of religion, but in my opinion there simply is ZERO hard, physical evidence of evolution, and any claims that there is, are pure nonsense, as even a kindergarten-level understanding of "philosophy of science" clearly shows. What is really silly is that all the claims about evolution will NEVER be DIRECTLY "observable" (science, anyone?) unless someone invents a time machine. All the evidence is simply of RELATEDNESS, and the fact that a lot of the biology has changed drastically over time, which proves absolutely NOTHING about WHY all the biology on this planet is so related, or why/how it has changed over time.

It can be seen that "god" is not my concern. My concerns are as stated: "hard, physical evidence," and "philosophy of science.". That you still try to pin the religious motivation on me sort of validates my post above: why won't you allow that there are SCIENTIFIC complaints against evolution? Why do you want all opposition to be religious?

God has nothing to do with it.

[webolife]

Along the same lines as BDW, I would note that irreducible complexity stands as a scientific evidence, whether or not one wished to accept it. The myriads of examples of it must either be explained by evolution [there is no such explanation based on evidence such as fossils, the presence of a mechanism for the accumulation of alleged beneficial mutations, etc.] or an alternative must be allowed. The non-allowance of an alternative such as intelligent design, only excludes it from your thinking, not from reality. Throw eggs all you want at what you call "creationism"... if it is in fact the "truth", then ALL the evidence will point to it, regardless of what you believe.

[nick c]

hi klypp,

I've been trying to figure out where we really differ.

I think the difference lies in the connection between Darwin and uniformitarianism. I cannot speculate on what Darwin really believed or was thinking, only on what he wrote. And that version of evolution is an extension of the gradualist geology of Hutton and Lyell. It was made to fit into that paradigm, that is, requiring immense amounts of time.

There is a lot of interest in studying these catastrophic events now. It is an opportunity to study evolution when the steam is really up.
Panspermia is also on the agenda. NASA is involved in several prosjects investigating the possibilities for microbes to survive and travel in space.

Mainstream has been forced into accomodating the obvious evidence of catastrophe in geological record. However, these have been absorbed without changing the underlying uniformitarian paradigm- that the Earth's features were shaped by the same erosive and tectonic forces we see in action today. Catastrophes are accepted only if moved away in space (a distant star collides with another) or in time (an asteroid hit the Earth 63 million years ago) and then as only a freakish event. The premise that catastrophes are the the motivating force behind evolution is pure Velikovskian. The theory of "punctuated equilibrium" as put forth by Gould and Eldredge is, to quote Charles Ginenthal, "...exactly the same catastrophic evolutionary theory as just presented. In the book, Earth In Upheaval..." The irony being that Gould had written a criticism of E in U, and then used the theory from that book and presented it as his own. See, Stephen J. Gould And Immanuel Velikovsky: Essays in the Continuing Velikovsky Affair,(1996)

As a sidenote, panspermia presents intriguing possibilities.

The scholarly world in recent years has occupied itself with the idea that microorganisms—living cells or spores—can reach the Earth from interstellar spaces, carried along by the pressure of light rays.(5) The explosion of a planet is a more likely method of carrying seeds and spores through interplanetary spaces
http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecseeds.htm

Darwin was well aware of Cuvier and his catastrophe theory. I don't know why he didn't follow this lead. Maybe he dismissed Cuvier because he put this theory in the wrong context (creationism)?
If so, you both made the same mistake...

Darwin was aware of Cuvier, however he rejected Cuvier and catastrophism, as did most of the intelligentsia of his time. This has been the prevailing line of thought to the present day. The chief reason for this is that Cuvier never could come up with any mechanisms or agents as the cause of the catastrophes. Global catastrophes were associated with the Old Testament, that is punishment from God and specifically the Deluge. Catastrophism became the enemy of science because it was equated with religious doctrine and what is now termed "creationism."
Which brings me back to the post where I stated that being against Darwin does not necessarily make one a creationist. Cataclysmic evolution is an alternative to both.

And so when earth, coated with silt from the recent flood, grew hot again from the heat of the sun pouring down from the sky, she brought forth numberless forms of life, not only restoring creatures from before the flood, but also making strange new monsters.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hDPmwb ... 8#PPA18,M1

from, Ovid, The Metamorphoses

nick c

[nick c]

hi webolife:

The non-allowance of an alternative such as intelligent design, only excludes it from your thinking, not from reality.

I can accept the possibility that there is some grandiose plan that is beyond the comprehension of our feeble human minds. But, it is in my opinion a personal philosophical or religious consideration.
That is, it does not meet the criteria of being a valid scientific hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable. I cannot conceive of any way or means whereby the outcome of some observation, test, or experiment would falsify the proposition of intelligent design.
Have intelligent design proponents proposed any "experimentum crucis?"

nick c

[webolife]

"Falsifiability" is certainly a problem for some ID adherents. Falsifiability is clearly an issue for anyone espousing any theory of earth history or cosmogony. The sheer volume of examples of "irreducible complexity" offer what I believe to be the major field of attack for detractors. What I would say however in defense of ID, or catastrophism, or the EU, or R.A.Smith's UFT, or GR or the big bang, for that matter, is what drives this whole thread for me... the worldview, paradigm, philosophy, perspective, or any other presuppositions you hold, whether consciously or not, are filtering mechanisms that determine your conclusions, regardless how robotically you try to conduct your science. Thus, the realms of science and faith co-mingle either by admission or denial, but co-mingle they do.

I have posted elsewhere but will rephrase here my favorite example, protein synthesis, in "simplified" form:

1. Start with any living cell in need of a protein.
2. Proteins called amino acids, specific to the cell type/identity, attach to predetermined marker points on the DNA strand.
3. One of the amino acids literally unzips the DNA separating the two helical strands up to the point where the other amino acid marks the end of the "gene".
4. Another amino acid, transcriptase, assembles molecules of RNA along the exposed nucleotides of the unzipped DNA.
5. Other proteins, including the turbcharged centrioles that create vortical microtubules, assist the transfer of the encoded RNA to ribsome sites.
6. Ribosomes are specialized proteins in the cell where amino acids, themselves digested products of former proteins, are linked together to form the specific protein for which the RNA was encoded.
7. This new protein is wisked to the location in the cell where its function and structure are required for the continuance of the cell.
8. Every protein in the cell is made by this process, which itself is dependent upon the specific sequencial presence and action of [pre"placed"] proteins, from the DNA, itself assembled/duplicated by a process involving several other specific proteins.
9. This process characterizes at the most fundamental level the life of every cell of every organism, regardles how "simple" or "complex".
10. Demonstrate that any organsim is capable of existing without this fully engaged protein synthesis process, and you will have falsified at least this particular element of ID, if not...
11. Return to step #1.

The materialist's only possible defense, as I see it, is the assertion that life along with its cells, proteins, and DNA, have eternally co-existed, or that somehow this process evolved through natural selection over eons of time by undirected collisions of atoms. Both assertions are statements of blatant faith that pale in my view when compared to the assertion that this complex and orderly process was programmed by a complex and orderly, OK intelligent, programmer. One's presupposition determines one's conclusions... and yet scientists holding these or similar views have practiced and will continue to practice science for centuries until there is nothing left to understand.

[webolife]

Oops, I forgot I wasn't on the Materialism thread when I answered Grey Cloud on the Bill Gaede thread with this quote:

"Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of our space program with NASA, wrote the following letter to the California State board of Education on September 14, 1972.

Dear Mr. Grose: In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory or the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system or the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot con- ceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowl- edging the "Case for Design" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for Chance" lies in the inconceiv- ability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the uni- verse, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.

With kindest regards.

sincerely,

Wernher von Braun"

I predict the objection that I am somehow appealing to authority by quote von Braun... not my intention.

[StevenO]

The non-allowance of an alternative such as intelligent design, only excludes it from your thinking, not from reality.

I can accept the possibility that there is some grandiose plan that is beyond the comprehension of our feeble human minds. But, it is in my opinion a personal philosophical or religious consideration.
That is, it does not meet the criteria of being a valid scientific hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable. I cannot conceive of any way or means whereby the outcome of some observation, test, or experiment would falsify the proposition of intelligent design.
Have intelligent design proponents proposed any "experimentum crucis?"

My basic objection against intelligent design is that it is science or philosophy upside down. The purpose of science is to explain complex facts with simpler and more general laws and theories. The observation that we see both simple and more complex life forms, combined with the law of increasing entropy gives credence to the theory that we have evolved. In fact we have evolved so much that we are now able to breed new species of dogs, genetically manipulate corn or create life-like forms in a computer simulation. All examples of intelligent design through application of science

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
You wrote:

In fact we have evolved so much that we are now able to breed new species of dogs, genetically manipulate corn or create life-like forms in a computer simulation.

Only new breeds of dogs - they are still dogs (does science know how dogs arose in the first place?). GM corn is still corn, though not as good as natural corn. Computer simulations are not life-forms, just computer simulations.

[webolife]

StevenO,
Did you mean to say "decreasing entropy" instead of increasing?
The violation of the law of increasing entropy is a key characteristic of macroevolution... the simple to complex scenario. Microevolution, on the other hand, is a direct result of increasing entropy, which stands hard against phylogeny.
Evolution by means of accumulation of undirected mutations must produce way more increase in entropy than decrease, hence it violates physics. Natural selection operates on preexisting structure and modifies it by attrition, decreasing overall complexity, in particular heritable information, and increasing overall entropy. In short, microevolution as observed negates macroevolution, rather than supporting it as Darwinists allege.

[StevenO]

In fact we have evolved so much that we are now able to breed new species of dogs, genetically manipulate corn or create life-like forms in a computer simulation.

Only new breeds of dogs - they are still dogs (does science know how dogs arose in the first place?). GM corn is still corn, though not as good as natural corn. Computer simulations are not life-forms, just computer simulations.

Ehmm....what have you proven now? That human 'intelligent design' is not as good as the real thing? Or that because science does'nt know yet how dogs arose they must have been designed? How would you define a life-form in the first place?

[Grey Cloud]

In fact we have evolved so much that we are now able to breed new species of dogs, genetically manipulate corn or create life-like forms in a computer simulation.

Only new breeds of dogs - they are still dogs (does science know how dogs arose in the first place?). GM corn is still corn, though not as good as natural corn. Computer simulations are not life-forms, just computer simulations.

Ehmm....what have you proven now? That human 'intelligent design' is not as good as the real thing? Or that because science does'nt know yet how dogs arose they must have been designed? How would you define a life-form in the first place?

Hi Steven,
Not trying to prove anything, merely pointing out the errors in your statements. You said new species of dog, I said new breeds. I'm saying that science can't explain where domestic dogs came from, and I'm saying that tinkering about with corn isn't creating anything new (excpet a problem for the future). Computer sims can create Black Holes and Dark Mattter or 'virtually' anything else but only if an intelligent designer provides them with the means to do so.
I don't really think in terms of life-forms.

[altonhare]

My interest is strictly from a "philosophy of science" perspective, or, simply, a scientific one. The situation for me with "evolution" is EXACTLY the same as for modern physics and astronomy: there is no evidence for the claims being made. They just take a piece of data, any piece of data, and then claim that it means whatever they want it to mean (without scientific justification), and if anyone disagrees, they are heretics. As far as I am concerned, the evidence for evolution is very similar to the "evidence" claimed for black holes.

The key of course is how anyone who disagrees is demonized, branded a heretic, etc. That is a SURE sign that science has taken a back seat to the proceedings.

It can be seen that "god" is not my concern. My concerns are as stated: "hard, physical evidence," and "philosophy of science.". That you still try to pin the religious motivation on me sort of validates my post above: why won't you allow that there are SCIENTIFIC complaints against evolution? Why do you want all opposition to be religious?

God has nothing to do with it.

BDW, you and I have a lot in common. The biggest problem in "science" is that it has gone the same way as religion, i.e. instituting authority as criteria. Science doesn't care if your idea came from the Pope's ass, 40 years of meditating, or an ancient text. All science cares about is if your theory is rational. This means there are no contradictions and we can visualize/illustrate the theory. If it is rational it is scientific. Any "evidence" brought in is just to convince others that yours is Right. However there is always an alternative way to interpret any given evidence, so evidence can never prove a theory. After the theory and evidence are presented each individual can decide to believe it or not, and/or to present their own theory. There are no authorities and there is no "scientific consensus".

You look at the evidence presented by evolutionists and don't see the connection, or you think it is weak at best. Another person looks at this evidence and sees nearly undeniable proof. You two believe differently for whatever reason, science doesn't care what you believe.

In science there is always free and open discourse at all times. There is no censorship. If I owned a "scientific journal" the following people would publish in it:

webolife
junglelord

you get the idea. I disagree with them but that doesn't matter. In science everyone's ideas are heard and each of us comes to our own conclusions. "Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

Along the same lines as BDW, I would note that irreducible complexity stands as a scientific evidence, whether or not one wished to accept it.

You see "irreducible complexity" and I just see a long rock on top of a round rock. I see atoms and molecules strung together. "Evidence" is ultimately subjective, science just cares if your explanation is rational. That's it. If your explanation isn't rational (you can't make a movie of it or you invoke contradiction) it doesn't belong in science.

So what's on the Creationist's movie screen?

The non-allowance of an alternative such as intelligent design, only excludes it from your thinking, not from reality. Throw eggs all you want at what you call "creationism"... if it is in fact the "truth", then ALL the evidence will point to it, regardless of what you believe.

You still don't have a theory at all. Like I said before, Creationism is a ghost, a phantasm. There is nothing on the screen yet. We cannot even evaluate its "truth" until we fully, clearly, unambiguously understand it.

As far as what's taught in schools, we don't teach science in schools. Science does not help us build bombs or vaccines. In school we teach whatever will help develop technology, i.e. whatever is useful. There is no provision for understanding a phenomenon of Nature here. Understanding might happen by coincidence, but it is irrelevant, we want *useful* in school.

So, what useful things does Creationism teach us to combat disease and build better bombs?

"Falsifiability" is certainly a problem for some ID adherents. Falsifiability is clearly an issue for anyone espousing any theory of earth history or cosmogony.

As you and I have gone over, different explanations are not really falsifiable. One can always imagine some way to interpret the results of experiments in such a way so that the theory is safe. Many apply Occam's Razor and eliminate those theories that require complex or convoluted mechanisms/explanations. But this is subjective.

You say that light is "instantaneous". This is not falsifiable because you could always devise some complicated situation/phenomenon that would create the illusion that light has a finite, constant speed. For me, this violates Occam's Razor. For you, not so much apparently.

Thus, the realms of science and faith co-mingle either by admission or denial, but co-mingle they do.

Science has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Each individual believes what they want *after* the scientific presentation is over. Science, itself, is simply a collection of rational explanations.

The materialist's only possible defense, as I see it, is the assertion that life along with its cells, proteins, and DNA, have eternally co-existed, or that somehow this process evolved through natural selection over eons of time by undirected collisions of atoms. Both assertions are statements of blatant faith that pale in my view when compared to the assertion that this complex and orderly process was programmed by a complex and orderly, OK intelligent, programmer.

It doesn't matter how many proteins you put on the table. This is subjective, anyone can interpret it any way they want. All that matters is if your theory is rational, if you can put it on the Big Board for all to see. If you can't, there simply is no theory, just a collection of words and feelings that evoke more words and feelings.

Also, the "materialist" points out that all things have Identity. This in itself imposes order. There is no need for an extrinsic agent to impose order on those things which already possess it.

Also, you completely ignored that a thin slab of stone on a round stone is "irreducibly complex" according to your own definition of this term.