|
Author
|
Topic: By what mechanism does the intelligent designer affect the physical world
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 20. October 2005 19:34
quote:
I have asked the following question many times and never received even an acknowledgement not to mention an answer. Assuming, as we must, that a creator must have been involved in a creation. exactly when in that prcess did the creator hand over the reins to Nature, that which had been created? My answer is never.
Hi: John, Sorry for getting metaphysical again, but then you are just a little metaphysical yourself - and so I feel excused. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) I see some contradiction in what you are saying here. On the other thread (Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis) you suggested that it seemed that after the creator had worked to bring about the evolving genome that he then had kind of died? You suggested, although did not say it explicitly that since the evolving genome could take care of itself in producing phylogeny there was no longer any evidence for God, and hence God was not? [Sorry for equating the creator with God - hope no offense ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ] So I am interested here that you say that the creator never handed over the reins to Nature.
[ 20. October 2005, 19:36: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. October 2005 21:53
I just noticed that you were addressing me on this thread.
Yes Chris, I do believe that God or the Gods died and are no longer available for the simple reason there is no evidence for their presence. Nor is there any need for them. As I see it a supernatural was absoluely necessary to write the program or programs which served, once written, to produce the evolutionary sequence. Those programs included all of mathematics, all of the rules of chemistry and physics and all of the rules that governed evolution. Once written these rules became natural and needed only to be discovered. I agree with Godfrey Hardy that mathematics was always there and was only discovered. I believe that all of science was always there and has been partially but by no means all discovered so far. This is basically the position of Grasse, Schindewolf, Broom and Berg all of whom reached it independently.
The PEH simply assumes that all of evolution was also prescribed and needs only to be discovered. Evolution has already been discovered and cannot be denied. There remains only the discovery of the mechanism or mechanisms by which it was effected. I have proposed such a mechanism in the PEH. It is as simple as that.
There is no reason to assume or demand a living God to explain anything in the universe and plenty of reasons not to. Such assumptions have led to the awful polarization that has done nothing to further our understanding. It has reached the point where if you are not a Darwinian atheist you are a religious fanatic. Of course both camps are wrong as far as I am concerned and I have never invoked a higher power as directly guiding evolution. Neither have any of my sources.
Pierre Grasse put it this way.
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him." The Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166. (his emphasis)
I am not at all convinced of a single act of creation as I have said in hard copy. Otherwise I agree completely.
He also identified the major problem with which we are still confronted:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between 'either randomness or the supernatural,' a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living things; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say."
"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition that I believe is wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
The Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
Is it any wonder that the Darwinians have deliberately ignored this great zoologist?
Or why they also ignore Leo Berg when he commented on ontogeny and phylogeny as follows?
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134.
or Robert Broom?
"Those who consider that all the strange course of evolution is the result of an accident, or a series of accidents, are quite at liberty to think so. I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal."
Finding the Missing Link, page 101.
I agree with all of this except to add that I feel the goal has been reached and creative evolution is a phenomenon of the past. These are the reasoned conclusions of some of my sources. There is nothing metaphysical in any of their writings beyond the unavoidable revelation that chance has played no role whatsoever. I am convinced that we will eventually understand how the plan was executed. When we do, both entrenched camps will have been proved to be dead wrong. The only difference between the laws of chemistry and physics and those that have determined ontogeny ond phylogeny is that the latter have yet to be disclosed. They are there and always have been.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. October 2005 14:31
Chris
I meant that the Creator never handed over the reins to NATURAL SELECTION. NATURAL SELECTION never did anything except ensure ultimate extinction by preventing organic change. How wrong can an hypothesis possibly be?
Don't take my word for it.
"On the other hand, Mivart (1871, p. lll) says, 'Arguments may yet be advanced in favor of the view that new species have from time to time manifested themselves with suddenness, and by modifications appearing at once, the species remaining stable in the intervals of such modifications.'"
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 389
Is it any wonder the Darwinians want nothing to do with their critics? We simply don't exist. We MUST NOT EXIST. Write that down. I think it is wonderful myself and I am having a great time lecturing to an empty hall. I even have a recurring dream about it.
"If you tell the truth, you can be sure, sooner or later, to be found out."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. October 2005 14:33
That quote is from Oscar Wilde.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. October 2005 13:53
Carl Zimmer over at his blog, The Loom, just allowed me to present what I regard as a devastating comment on the way Darwinians have always denigrated or ignored their critics. It is on the thread "My blog, your microphone" He is asking for comments on what the proper role is for internet blogs. I hope others will offer their opinions as well. Earlier I presented my view that anonymity should be abolished as it often serves only as a venue for unbridled vitriol. I am encouraged by the high percentage of those that post here who present their real identity. I would like to see anonymity abolished. Why it was ever allowed to start is beyond me.
If this is a subject worthy of discussion in its own right I would like to see it introduced as a thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. October 2005 10:09
Things are getting interesting over at "The Loom." I am now being accused of that old chestnut - "quote mining." Feel free to join in.
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Andersen
Member
Member # 1795
|
posted 25. October 2005 06:37
quote:
In short, how does the non-physical influence the physical?
The link between non-physical and physical is motion.
The non-physical (that which is called God) is in itself without motion, therefore it cannot be measured, since all measuring devices are based on registering motion at some level. But it can produce motion through vibration, and thereby create and move already created matter. Physical matter is nothing but motion, a stable pattern of motion, produced by vibration created by the non-physical.
This is completely in accordance with science, where energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. And physically, motion is equivalent to energy. The only way you can measure or observe energy is when it manifests as motion, either in the form of matter, or as pure motion, moving existing matter. Primary energy comes directly from non-physical, secondary energy is produced by the interactions of energy stored in already created matter. But all energy/motion is originally produced by the non-physical.
In other words, all physical activity is directly or indirectly caused by the non-physical, by its ability to produce motion/energy. There are no exceptions here.
But what is it then that moves? What is the substance which is set in motional patterns in order to create matter? I think it was Buddha that explained it this way "It is not something, and it is not not-something". In other words, it is something, but it is not matter, or "something" as we understand it. In physical terms, it does not exist.
Matter is created by a polarization or division of this "something", which in itself is undivided. In Eastern philosophy this undivided "something" is called TAO, and the two poles Yin and Yang. That is why the atom has a negative and a positive electrical charge, it is this polarized charge that is responsible for its physical existence. Its stability depends completely on the stable balance of these charges. This balance is kept stable by the electrons' spin around the nucleus. The centrifugfal force keeps the electrons from being attracted into the nucleus by its opposite charge, just like the Earth keeps its distance to the sun by its rotation. If an atom collapses, it will simple return to the state of undivided oneness again.
The Eastern concept of TAO can be difficult to interprete and utilize scientifically, but a few people have adapted this principle into a modern scientific context. One of them is Walter Russell, his books can be found at http://philosophy.org
Note that this is a rather simple and not very precise explanation, just to give an idea of how it works. If you want to understand it fully (if you do not already ), study TAO or read Russells books.
[ 25. October 2005, 06:55: Message edited by: Richard Andersen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. October 2005 07:57
I hope some have been following the situation at Carl Zimmer's "The Loom." After allowing some pretty hideous ad hominem attacks to stand, he is now intercepting my posts and holding them. I suspect they will never appear. I have been entirely civilized in my dialogue there. The reason I mention this is because it is characteristic of so many internet forums to muzzle those that fail to subscribe to their core belief or beliefs. I have managed to alienate both the Creationist and the Darwinist factions and I think I finally know why.
It is because I have taken a third position. Implicit in the PEH is the assumption that evolution is not being guided but was the result of mechanisms originally established somehow, mechanisms that are able to seek a goal. Such mechanisms are already obvious in ontogeny. As we disclose them in ontogeny we will also in phylogeny. They are part of the same reproductive continuum.
Such an hypothesis does not require a living God, only a dead one of unfathomable intelligence and foresight. It also has no place for chance. In other words, both of the currently entrenched camps are wrong.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. October 2005 15:29
I have been banned at "The Loom" and Zimmer has posted as much. I cannot believe the intolerance of the materialist (Darwinian) camp. I can only conclude that they are genetically incapable of accepting even a dead Creator. It is hard to believe isn't it? Actually, I find it most encouraging.
"I never did give them hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell."
Harry S. Truman
"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don't ever apologize for anything."
ibid
IP: Logged
|
|
Brain2000
Member
Member # 1971
|
posted 14. May 2006 14:53
John, you have authored 7 of the last 8 posts, most of which are bashing someone's Darwinism site. You seem like a well read person, which brings up the question as to exactly why you think Darwinism is completely false? I believe in Darwinism because it is an observable phenomenon. I also am an agnostic, not an athiest, because I do not believe god can truly be proven [yet], but if he was truly, scientifically, observably, proven to exist [and not as someone's opinion; you can always find someone to ignorantly say this has already happened], I would change my mind. That is why I am not an athiest. However, I am always re-weighing new evidence to see if my beliefs are ready to change today. Is there a creator? There might be, living or dead. Do I think this is true? I lean more towards a no, than yes. The evidence is still inconclusive.
But natural selection not causing evolution, and Darwinism being false? I need to read on this evidence you speak of. I have a feeling though, the proponents of this view are those who favor god, and always have to leave in a "magic" factor. Which is why I have a hard time with the Aether model of physics. It is nicely laid out, until you hit the gforce page. Then they start saying it proved intelligent design, and god is in the details. In my opinion, the "I can't explain this, therefore it must be magic" mindset is very dangerous.
I have a new quote, I just thought of it:
"Intelligent design is the evolution of creationism, due to natural selection"
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 14. May 2006 21:03
quote:
Intelligent design is the evolution of creationism, due to natural selection.
Darwinism was the creation of an intelligent agent.
"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which have been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." - Charles Darwin
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. May 2006 05:34
yanniru questions
quote:
...how does the non-physical influence the physical?
How does the Sun influence the earth? What is gravity?
Physical answer: gravitons, never observed imaginary particles that convey gravity.
The answer to Yanniru is similar: Creatons.
A creaton is virtual particle that conveys the creative force that operates in a biogenetic field. Earth is a biogenetic field, which is the void of Genesis. The interaction leads to the creation of novel genetic programs. If a observer was in the position to watch this interacting process he/she wouldn't understand what was going on as it would show spontaneous rearrangemnets of negative entropy.
Creatons are comparable to gravitons in the sense that creatons are the mediators of creation, while gravitons are the mediators of gravity.
peebee
[ 15. May 2006, 05:41: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. May 2006 05:54
Is there evidence for creatons?
No, as they, just like gravitons, cannot be observed. However, just like gravitons which are inferred from gravitation, creatons can be inferred from what we observe in the genomes of the living organisms of this planet:
quote:
One of the key results of these immense projects (HUGO and the like) was the identification of the 'birth' of 1183 novel genes in the last evolutionary 60-100 million years and the 'death' of only 83 in the same time period [14]. The high number of new genes relative to inactivated – or simply: dead – genes implies that when a gene duplicated, the copy must have led almost instantly to a novel gene. From the Darwinian tinkering process of trial and error process we would expect the opposite: high levels of dead genes – try-outs – and the arrival of a sporadic novel gene. The human genome project shows that it did not happen that way. (QUOTED FROM: Borger's GUToB)
I take the huge amount of new genes relative to dead genes as evidence of creatons and the Creator. Any objections?
This also shows that NOT all information was present from the start. There was addition of genes over a period of time. It should be noted here, that this is also a problem for the PEH, which holds that ALL information was present from day zero, and afterwards gradually unfolded. The genomes show it did not happen that way: genetic information was added afterwards.
peebee
[ 17. May 2006, 06:14: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 18. May 2006 07:31
RBH: "That is, Dembski invokes a zero-energy (and therefore zero channel capacity) infinite wavelength (and therefore unfocusable) communication channel."
The amount of information that can be transmitted over a channel is inversely related to wavelength. A channel of infinite wavelength can transmit no information.
Christopher D. Beling: "Quantum fluctuations would occur rapidly during transmission - producing say a novel gene - if it were possible to observe?."
As far as manipulating the results of the "quantum dice", the evidence strongly indicates that quantum events are strictly random with respect to the macroscopic world. If you want to posit the occasional miracle, well, that's not a scientifically testable assertion.
peter borger: "How does the Sun influence the earth? What is gravity?
Physical answer: gravitons, never observed imaginary particles that convey gravity.
The answer to Yanniru is similar: Creatons."
Gravitons are *hypothetical* particles. The hypothesis comes from quantum symmetries, and importantly, has specific experimental ramifications. Such detection experiments are ongoing. Meanwhile, the working Theory of Gravity posits curves in space. These curves also have specific experimental ramifications, including the observed bending of light.
Creatons, on the other hand, explain nothing and predict nothing. There is no experimental test for creatons.
yanniru: "what seems to be missing in making this a really scientific argument is how the intelligent designer interacts with the physical world"
There is no scientifically observed mechanism by which the 'intelligent designer' interacts with the physical world (unless you consider hand-waving to be such a mechanism). Nor has anyone ever proposed a reasonable scientific hypothesis (meaning an assertion with empirical implications) of such a mechanism.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. May 2006 07:03
quote:
Creatons, on the other hand, explain nothing and predict nothing. There is no experimental test for creatons.
How do you know?
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic