|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 13. April 2006 19:41
John,
Now I understood your position better. Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, if you invoke the supernatural, a lot of the facts that I listed can indeed be explained in broad terms. In your view, the supernatural is involved in the begining of evolution and everything is prescribed at the begininng of evolution by the supernatural. Once evolution is set in motion, the supernatural no longer interferes or cares. But what your theory is lacking is a detailed rational for why 5 finger is preferred over 4 or 6 fingers or why human culture is facinated with 5. Until you can provide a rational for that, it is very hard for your theory to be considered a scientific one.
I do not believe in a religous God or a personal God. But I do think that the facts support my view that the supernatural is involved in evolution from the begining to the present day. Its interference is however only menisfested at steps that could be considered creative jumps or revolutionary advance. It is not involved in microevolution such from a fish to another fish but is involved in macroevolution such as from a fish to an amphibian. It is involved in a creative and immortal human being such as a Van Gogh but is not involved in the everyday affairs of most people. Even when it is involved, its effects would be so subtle that the person affected may not notice it consciously. I dont think that there are any facts that could refute my view of the supernatural. The fact that human culture is somehow linked to 5 suggests that the supernatural who is somehow obsessed with 5 is having an active role in the evolution of the mind or human culture. The challenge for you and all human beings for that matter is to explain why the supernatural is obsessed with 5.
The best and most useful knowledge is scientific knowledge. The best scientific knowledge is expressed by the language of mathematics. If there is going to be a scientific law of evolution, it must be a law that is much better than any scientific law that we know. It must be a law that can be expressed by the language of mathematics. By such a standard, none of the present evolution theories really qualify as a truthful theory. Until you can express it by mathematics, you really do not have a fundamental idea or truth.
When you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind. - Lord Kelvin (William Thomson; 1824-1907)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. April 2006 19:52
Shi
Sorry but I must disagree. The scientist does not ask the question why - only how. If you see evidence for supernatural intervention I recommend you publish it somewhere so it can be examined right up front. I see no evidence for an intervening God and neither did any of my sources. At least they never said so. I also am not at all impressed with the number 5 particularly except for its mathematical curiosity in Phi and the pentagram. I am also convinced that evolution is quite finished and has been for a very long time. Those are my published conclusions so I am not likely to easily give them up without concrete evidence to the contrary. I hope this clarifies my position. You will find most of my published papers on the side bar at Uncommon Descent ahould you be interested. In the meantime of course every one is entitled to their opinion on the greatest mystery in all of biological science.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 14. April 2006 14:25
John,
The why questions or philosophical questions must one day be resovled by the best knowledge that human is capable of grasping. Until then, human will never stop trying to resolve them. That is a given and no one will doubt that. Since the best and the most reliable and useful knowledge is scientific knowledge or mathematical knowledge, the only way to settle the deepest why questions is to rely on science or math. The ultimate scientific or math knowledge will no doubt resolve not only how but also why. Both why or goal and how or methods are absolutely required for any creative endeavor that human is familar with. When we see a beautiful building, knowing how it is built is much less interesting to the mind than knowing why it is built that way. So to claim science can only resolve how but not why is premature and a self imposed artificial rule and cannot be proven as a truthful statement. In fact, science in many cases does have strong relavence to to the why questions. The philosophy of materialism is nothin without science. Darwinism would say that human is created for no reason or goal. That is one logical answer from Darwinism, a false one in my opinion, to the question of why human or life. An alternative theory to Darwinism cannot escape the necessity to answer the why question, since Darwinism does do that. So, John, your PEH theory must tell people why human or why life. Until you do that and do it correctly, people will not take your theory as the final word and will always keep searching for better theories.
Specifically, I would like to clarify a few points about your theory.
1. When did the prescription take place, at the big bang or at the creation of the first bacteria or some other time?
2. The information for creating a human being is prescribed when and to which organism?
3. What is the motif of the supernatural in prescribing evolution? Why he or she needs to do it? For what benefits to he or she?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. April 2006 15:10
Shi
I am not in a position to answer any of your questions and am surprised that you would expect me to. The PEH is receiving experimental support during a period in which Darwinism is receiving none. That is all I am prepared to say at present. I am not a philosopher. I am a bench scientist.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. April 2006 19:41
Incidentally, you will no longer be able to find my papers in the side bar at Uncommon Descent because DaveScot, the blog czar there, in a fit of pique removed them. It is sad when such things happen. The entire episode is documented on my blog:
newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. April 2006 19:27
Since you do believe in the supernatural, you should be welcomed by the ID people. I am puzzled by their reception of you. Please explain a little why your view is not popular with the ID people.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. April 2006 12:27
Dembski never mentions my name because if he does he will have to also recognize all of my sources not one of which was a Darwinian or a Christian Fundamentalist. I have also been critical of his assumption that Intelligent Design is an "inference." I have always regarded ID as a self-evident starting point without which nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny will ever make sense. Like my predecessors, I am ignored for the same reason that the Darwinians ignore or denigrate me. I have rejected both camps in this intellectual war, a war which should never have been waged. Why not ask Dembski why I have always been ignored and why my papers have disappeared from the side board at Uncommon Descent? He has not responded to my query nor to my request that they be reinstated. After all they are published in refereed journals. Everything that transpires at his forum is his responsibility. I am sure he would be happy to explain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 18. April 2006 16:44
John, Dembski used to refer to you on his website as "a good friend who taught me much" (approximately.) Your PEH hypothesis is considered to be excellent, even the best theory out ther, by many of us in the ID community. Contrary to your statement, your sources are intriguing, rich, and respected.
I suspect, however, that Dembski cannot work with you because, as you have done with me, you blew him off not for the beliefs that he holds, but because you have some criticism with the historical account of how his religious perspective came to be. Like, do you really think that the entire protestant movement mulls over the words of Martin Luther, and diefies him?
Honest, Dr. Davison, I really wish you would look in the mirror, and realise that if all of the websites are banning you, even those websites that were initially excited by your initial arrival, that the issue is deeper than their distaste for your theory. The issue is the way you communicate with, the way you blow off, those who consider themselves to be your friends.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. April 2006 07:38
Bruce
I request you demonstrate where Dembski has ever mentioned my name on his forum or anywhere else in any context whatsoever. In other words I do no accept what you have claimed. Furthermore, Dembski banned me from his forum long ago. DaveScot readmitted me and presented my several published papers, published over a span of 22 years, on the side bar at Uncommon Descent. I was banned once again without exlanation as were my papers and my papers have not been reinstated. Now these are matters of fact and have nothing to do with me looking into any mirrors. I am an independent investigator who has never identified himself with any faction and I never will. Neither did any of my sources. Please present the sources for what you have claimed. If you cannot I think an apology would be in order.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. April 2006 17:53
Bruce
In the interest of accuracy I ask you to point out to me and all others exactly where on his website Dembski referred to me a a "good friend," where he ever mentioned my name at all.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 20. April 2006 13:24
Hi John, sorry for not getting back on this earlier, my life got in the way.
The quote I am referring to was on the sidebar on uncommon descent, you know the one that was just taken down, so I can't conjur it up. There is a possibility, however, that it was Dave Scott, rather than Dembski that made the statement, and that I got confused by the predominant picture of Dembski on that website. I'd hate to think that Dembski actually respects your work as I do.
However, John, you still seem to pride yourself in being rejected. You seem to hold having been evicted from virtually all forums that should be respecting your views as a badge of honor. I know with myself, that when I expressed respect for your hypothesis, you followed by blasting my religious beliefs, and using a very broad brush.
You have the best thought out, and most easily supported by historically recognized biologists, alternative to Darwinism that I have encountered. Your PEH, unlike other arguments such as irreduceable complexity or UPB, is positivistic -- "this is what happened", rather than "that didn't happen". However, the fact that you are determined to be in conflict with people, as exemplified by your response to me and as exemplified by being kicked off of virtually all of the forums, is causing your hypothesis to not be heard. Too bad, it'll take another hundred years, and another clear voice, to bring this truth to light.
Bruce
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 20. April 2006 13:28
John,
Your view that the existence of a supernatural force is obvious and needs no debate or prove is a reasonable one. However, just because something is obvious does not mean that it should not be proved, cannot be proved, or needs not be proved. Many mathematical conjectures such as the Goldbach are obviously true but still need to be proved before its truth will be accepted by all. The existence of the supernatural is obvious to many besides you, such as the ancients, your sources, and Newton and Einstein. But just because it is obvious is not enough to establish truth or convince everyone. Therefore, the ID movement has some merits in trying to establish a logical argument for proving that the supernatural must exist because it is the only possible explanation for specified and irreducible complexity. Regardless how obvious the supernatural is, human will never stop trying to prove its existence. That must be done first before any evolution theory that is based on the supernatural will be accepted as truth. The most important goal of humanity cannot be anything but to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator. The ID movement is one way to do it but I am not sure that it is the best way or it will succeed.
Your other view that ID people are essentially motivated by religion is probable false. They are using logic rather than faith, which is the only way for them to be taken seriously by the public and the only way to prove something.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. April 2006 15:33
Bruce,
Of course I pride myself in having been rejected from just about a every forum in cyberspace. Every forum I ever entered I did so in the same spirit with which I submit my papers to refereed journals for publication. Nearly every forum greeted me with vitriol and denigration to which I naturally responded in kind.
It was of course DaveScot, not Dembski who described me as a friend, the same DaveScot who, after introducing my published papers and referring to them favorably, removed them after I had questioned the wisdom of the ID people to have offered ID up for debate as an "inference." He did what Dembski expected under the circumstances. DaveScot runs Uncommon Descent with an iron fist, all with the tacit approval of William Dembski who stays safely above the fray.
You can continue to blame me for the way I have been received by the internet community. It means nothing to me because I have confidence in my work which none of my adversaries have in theirs. I have already established that when not one responded to my challenge to present his version of the mechanism of organic evolution. As a matter of fact, I know of not a single one of my internet adversaries who ever published anything about the mechanism of organic evolution. But they all have know the truth don't they? They fall into two mjor camps, Darwinian atheist mystics and Fundamentalst Christian mystics, each led by their self-appointed leaders, none of whom qualify as a real scientist in my view. William Dembski certainly doesn't and neither does Richard Dawkins. My several sources were each a leader in his field long before he even thought about publishing his views on evolution. You won't find Dembski or Dawkins referrimg to them in a favorable light either. As I have said many times, we critics of both the Darwinian and Fundamentalist camps are not allowed to exist by either faction. As I have also claimed, both camps are dead wrong. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is. It is right where today's laboratories are finding it, in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
I have presented all kinds of evidence for Intelligent Design beginning 22 years ago and I have never had to present it as an "inference." I have never regarded it as a subject for debate either. It is the mandatory starting point for the understanding of both ontogeny and phylogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 20. April 2006 15:57
Shi: quote:
Since you do believe in the supernatural, you should be welcomed by the ID people. I am puzzled by their reception of you. Please explain a little why your view is not popular with the ID people.
Shi, I think the above dialog will probably be sufficient for you to understand.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. April 2006 19:44
Bruce
I deeply resent your inference that I am determined to be in conflict with people. It is exactly the opposite as a careful review of the history of my presence on the internet will reveal. The professionals pretend that I, like all my sources, do not exist and the amateurs, which is about all we have in cyberspace, have with rare exceptions treated me and my sources with contempt. The only reason I communicate on the internet is because the published Darwinians and Fundamentaklists alike are afraid to mention either me or my sources as they always have. I am sorry that you can't see that.
Why don't you review my history at EvC, ARN, Pharyngula, FringeSciences and Panda's Thumb. After you have done that, then come back and again lay the blame at my feet.
It is you that are treating me unfairly here at brainstorms where I do not have to respond in kind because this is one of the few civilized forums where I can post. You also do not need to apologize for insisting that Dembski regarded me as his friend. If you had done your homework you would have known better. Neither Dembski nor any of the other members of the "ID movement" have ever mentioned my name in hard copy. They are too busy gaining notoriety by attacking their Darwinian enemies just as the Darwinians are attacking them. It is an old story. When cold hard facts encounter blind ideology, ideology invariably carries the day.
It is pathetic.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic