tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8910366962848631582..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The creationism continuumLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70152633254727265402015-07-25T21:30:37.674-04:002015-07-25T21:30:37.674-04:00That is the stock answer, I am familiar with it.
...That is the stock answer, I am familiar with it. <br /><br />However:<br /><br />1) I know that's not a popular position, but really there is a lot less distinction between physics and metaphysics than people think. <br /><br />2) Statistical randomness is not really "just a model", it follows from what we know about how inheritance works and is true with respect to what we care about here -- the content of chromosomes. If some deity is secretly rigging up everything then what we know is wrong and there is nothing "metaphysical" about that. A key part of the theory is that these things happen with no foresight with respect to what happens later. That would be false if a deity was driving the process. So I don't see how invoking divine action is not equivalent to rejecting the theory. <br /><br />P.S. The statement that all mutations have an unbroken chain of causation down to the origin of the universe is not necessarily true, in fact it's most likely false. That is what one needs to be propose under the front-loading scenario. The main alternative to that is direct divine intervention to insert specific mutations into genomes and then drive them to fixation (the latter is frequently ignored but the probability of fixation for newly arisen mutations, even if highly beneficial is actually quite small; so there will have to be not just a lot of designed mutations but probably also a lot of specified fixations). But both of these are basically indistinguishable from ID. Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58372418393797000562015-07-25T20:56:02.647-04:002015-07-25T20:56:02.647-04:00All of the interpretations above are consistent wi...All of the interpretations above are consistent with statistical randomness, and thus with the equations of population genetics etc. But statistical randomness does not necessarily mean metaphysical randomness. Confusing the two is forcing religious opinions and metaphysics into science. (Just as endorsing one of the theist views of chance, as a scientific view as a scientific view, would be. Ken Miller always makes it clear he doesn't think his theist interpretations should be part of science.)<br /><br />Heck, all statistical randomness in an equation means is that whatever process that is under consideration can be reasonably modeled as a random process. Typically there actually are known proximate causes that are deterministic rather than random. We know several causes for speciation, but when we estimate speciation/extinction models, we treat speciation as a random process that occurs stochastically at some rate, just like radioactive decay events. Similarly for mutations: we know the causes of mutations, they are not in fact "random" in the sense of having no proximate cause. We just model them as happening at some rate because we can't trace the exact chemistry in detail in every cell in every organism at once.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10222477817484216152015-07-24T19:21:58.036-04:002015-07-24T19:21:58.036-04:00It's not impossible.
But then population gene...It's not impossible.<br /><br />But then population genetics is false, because its equations assume random mutations and random sorting. And then evolutionary theory is wrong too. <br /><br />The only way around that is to propose that humans were not an inevitable predetermined outcome of the process of cosmic evolution, and there are some versions of the deity that can make such a scheme work. But that's not the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. It's something else. Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9461848406742479982015-07-24T18:18:38.684-04:002015-07-24T18:18:38.684-04:00For all we know, maybe reality is classical and de...For all we know, maybe reality is classical and deterministic and quantum uncertainty just represents our detection limit. This would make the future not forseeable by humans, but forseeable by God. A totally different possibility is that God decides some/all quantum events. Or, some theists like Ken Miller endorse true randomness. I don't think there's a whit of evidence for any of this, but it's not contradicted by data either.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32454643696748372612015-07-24T12:31:34.010-04:002015-07-24T12:31:34.010-04:00Quantum mechanics and population genetics.
Factor...Quantum mechanics and population genetics.<br /><br />Factors like what is the probability of fixation of a newly arisen mutation even if it's beneficial, and what is the relative importance of drift and selection in macroscopic vs microscopic organisms (broadly divided, there are many subtleties of course)Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59480945403349703032015-07-24T12:16:49.153-04:002015-07-24T12:16:49.153-04:00Looking at a slightly lower level of turtles:
Nei...Looking at a slightly lower level of turtles:<br /><br />Neither front loading nor any version of theistic evolution that has the deity starting things off because He, being omniscient, knows where they will wind up, could possibly make sense once quantum physics is conceded to exist. No, I'm not talking about some New Age bowdlerization of the Uncertainty Theorem, but about the actual Uncertainty Theorem and the quantum/stochastic nature of radiation, which plays a role in mutation. This disallows any long term predictability to evolution at the most fundamental level of the way the universe works. <br /><br />Of course there are all the contingencies involved in the history of life on earth, but perhaps someone might want to claim a deity could have foreseen all that. The fact that physics is quantum means even if one would posit a Creator for the universe, that Creator structured it to work in such a way that events within it were fundamentally not foreseeable.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19541302608732083252015-07-24T11:37:16.198-04:002015-07-24T11:37:16.198-04:00They dont think species, or phyla, or organisms, o...<i>They dont think species, or phyla, or organisms, or flagella or whatever, or genes, were created by divine miracles. The ID people and the other creationists do. That's a big difference IMHO.</i><br /><br />1) Do the ID people think that? I don't think all of them think that about all organisms<br /><br />2) Nobody really thinks about the details here, but it's actually really hard to make up scenarios in which it was only a subset of organisms that was designed/front-loaded. Species do not exist in isolation, after all, and what evolves in some branch <br />of the tree/forest/web of life can have profound consequences for everything else. For example, if you claim that the appearance of humans was inevitable, then that means the appearance of a many other groups is inevitable too (for example, at very broad level, the archaea, alpha-proteobacteria, green algae, land plants, etc.). <br /><br />3) The reason nobody really thinks about the details is that in fact nobody cares about anything else but human evolution. That's the only thing that really matters. And the difference with respect to it between the various strands of creationism/ID/TE is not that significant.<br /><br />That's even more true (that it's the only thing that matters) in practice. There is the intellectual argument, but there are also the real-world implications of how we think of ourselves and our place in the universe (and no, gay marriage and other fashionable social justice topics are not at all important here, the stakes are much bigger), something that if we do not get right, threatens our very survival on this planet. When it comes to this question, TE is just as bad as YEC, because it imposes the same insurmountable barrier to the much needed rethinking of what it means to be humanGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33140323618528390312015-07-24T10:44:24.667-04:002015-07-24T10:44:24.667-04:00That philosophy is known as Deism, which isn't...That philosophy is known as Deism, which isn't to popular amongst theists these days. Einstein and possibly Darwin were Deists.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84483674456743061512015-07-24T10:17:04.281-04:002015-07-24T10:17:04.281-04:00It doesn't. It's a form of cognitivie diss...It doesn't. It's a form of cognitivie dissonance -- the kind of internal inconsistency we humans are rather good at living with.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78756068584520827512015-07-24T10:04:06.256-04:002015-07-24T10:04:06.256-04:00In a way, the ID, YEC and OEC versions of creation...In a way, the ID, YEC and OEC versions of creationism are actually more coherent than the evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution version, in that the latter accepts all the naturalistic processes that science reveals to have occurred, but adds a disclaimer that these are all really supernatural miracles in some way. I don't really see how that makes internal sense. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27606490921956653822015-07-24T06:50:53.056-04:002015-07-24T06:50:53.056-04:00NickM said:
"What makes young earth creation...NickM said:<br /><br />"What makes young earth creationists and old earth creationists creationists, and theistic evolutionists evolutionists? The former invoke miraculous special creation to explain biology, the latter don't."<br /><br />From what I've seen, so-called "theistic evolutionists" do believe and assert that their chosen, so-called 'God' did create the universe, life/biology/evolution, and whatever other particulars are convenient to their religious beliefs. <br /><br />The main difference between so-called "theistic evolutionists" and IDiot-creationists, for example, appears to be that IDiot-creationists believe and assert that their chosen 'designer-creator-assembler-guider' (i.e. 'God') has and will continue to design-create-assemble-guide the universe, life/biology, and whatever other particulars are convenient to their beliefs, while so-called "theistic evolutionists" are basically pushers of original creation and front-loading by their chosen, so-called 'God' but not necessarily any designing-creating-assembling-guiding by 'God' since then, although some of the TEs apparently keep that option open. <br /><br />The thing is, what "theistic evolutionists", IDiot-creationists, and other creationists believe and push is extremely variable and often inconsistent with the standards (pfft)) of their 'official' claims. For example, some IDiot-creationists push their own version of front-loading (e.g. joe g). <br /><br />Ultimately, they all believe in and push a supernatural-creator-god (aka designer, etc.) and associated fairy tales of some sort (whether they'll admit it or not). The details of 'creation' beliefs vary widely (OEC, YEC, etc., etc., etc.) but they're all still creationists, and in my opinion none of them actually accept that evolution has occurred and occurs as put forth by evolutionary theory. There's no 'God' in evolutionary theory and trying to add one (or more) in any way is a religious-creationist agenda. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-303892657352881392015-07-24T05:17:07.679-04:002015-07-24T05:17:07.679-04:00How are (the vast majority of) theistic evolutioni...<i>How are (the vast majority of) theistic evolutionists not proposing miraculous special creation?</i><br /><br />There is a continuum here as well, from those who propose miraculous <i>general</i> creation at the origin of life to "divine interventionists" who think than a supernatural agent has been supervising evolution ever since to make sure that it eventually generates intelligent beings to whom immaterial and immortal souls can be given. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79803216654742736882015-07-24T05:05:39.139-04:002015-07-24T05:05:39.139-04:00They dont think species, or phyla, or organisms, o...They dont think species, or phyla, or organisms, or flagella or whatever, or genes, were created by divine miracles. The ID people and the other creationists do. That's a big difference IMHO.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13704093066459713162015-07-24T01:57:14.677-04:002015-07-24T01:57:14.677-04:00How are (the vast majority of) theistic evolutioni...How are (the vast majority of) theistic evolutionists not proposing miraculous special creation?<br /><br />They differ on the mechanisms, but not on the main point. Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36800609833090899572015-07-24T01:55:36.501-04:002015-07-24T01:55:36.501-04:00What makes young earth creationists and old earth ...What makes young earth creationists and old earth creationists creationists, and theistic evolutionists evolutionists? The former invoke miraculous special creation to explain biology, the latter don't. I think this is the key distinction that people are fighting about in the creation/evolution wars. And it's also what Darwin meant when he defined the term creationist in this context - "atoms flashed into living tissue" or some such. So that's the best definition, although obviously it has other uses. I wrote this up in more detail in a 2010 EEO article.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67665631699935630642015-07-22T19:30:21.455-04:002015-07-22T19:30:21.455-04:00KevNick,
If only you knew how ignorant and deeply...KevNick,<br /><br />If only you knew how ignorant and deeply stupid your comments show you to be. Man you would never come back out of shame.<br /><br />Nobody is afraid of you or your "questions" KevNick. We've just learned that you're too ignorant and stupid to understand any answers, and too much of a hypocrite. You never even try understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17613164903042420062015-07-22T19:01:12.170-04:002015-07-22T19:01:12.170-04:00BTW: I wrote my last comment at 6:50. You had writ...BTW: I wrote my last comment at 6:50. You had written you comment at 6:49. Just look at the content.... <br /><br />Should I write a comment for the incoherent ones to get the point? Or is Piotr G. obvious and deepening cowardice good enough?Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34280838236203810072015-07-22T18:50:24.094-04:002015-07-22T18:50:24.094-04:00Piotr G,
I have many, many other scientific ques...Piotr G, <br /><br />I have many, many other scientific questions I WILL ASK YOU....<br /><br />As a paper-pusher, why do you think you are qualified even to pretend to be an authority in a scientific debate?Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13560167452520209212015-07-22T18:49:47.216-04:002015-07-22T18:49:47.216-04:00KevNick,
I didn't mean discussing science wit...KevNick,<br /><br />I didn't mean discussing science with a semi-literate idiot like you.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59287380814519284042015-07-22T09:55:32.311-04:002015-07-22T09:55:32.311-04:00In fact, I'm going to stop calling them IDiots...In fact, I'm going to stop calling them IDiots and go with "cdesign proponentsists" exclusively from now on. The only drawback is that autocorrect refuses to believe that "cdesign" is a word.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83587805599611533402015-07-22T09:33:56.554-04:002015-07-22T09:33:56.554-04:00It's likely Dr. Moran feels confronting myth, ...It's likely Dr. Moran feels confronting myth, untruth and very bad science or non-science is the best way (or at least a good way) to promote good science.<br /><br />I personally tend to respond more (that is, I tend to attain more personal enjoyment and fascination) when simply learning about good science, that is, just going straight to the good stuff rather than pausing to do battle with the bad stuff first. I think "The poor [scientists] you will always have with you," and thus feel it may be a waste of time to continually be involved in argument with them.<br /><br />On the other hand, (1) Here I am commenting on this blog post, and (2) Dr. Moran's posts confronting bad science tend to get many more responses than those presenting good science.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12014122011861054402015-07-22T09:24:15.300-04:002015-07-22T09:24:15.300-04:00cdesign proponentsists
To my mind, this is the sh...<i>cdesign proponentsists</i><br /><br />To my mind, this is the short answer to the question. Leading Intelligent Design proponents felt a text written to support "scientific creationism" worked perfectly well as a text for the teaching of Intelligent Design. Therefore, the two are equivalent. QED.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86355552793582334702015-07-22T09:20:24.153-04:002015-07-22T09:20:24.153-04:00Do you have to be a Christian or a Jew to be creat...<i>Do you have to be a Christian or a Jew to be creationist?</i><br /><br />Since there are literally billions of non-Christian, non-Jewish people living in the world today who believe in a creator God or gods, plus billions more through history (including prior to the existence of Judaism and/or Christianity), I'm rather amazed anyone could not know the answer to this question is "Of course not."judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65251109123060163052015-07-22T01:00:02.922-04:002015-07-22T01:00:02.922-04:00WOW> The longest intro ever and all about the o...WOW> The longest intro ever and all about the obvious.<br />Mankind always said a being created the world etc and most still say that today.<br />There is opposition and so there is a reaction. Creationist as a term only exists to assert that a creator, thinking being invisable, created some, most, or all of the universe.<br />Then that the evidence of this is in the visible nature and assertions and defence are made.<br />Since its a intellectual discussion on nature then indeed a single word does not profile accurately until everyone knows its a general term.<br />Creationist does mean to many YEC only. Yes some naughty evolutionist defenders use it to tar non YEC creationists. being YEC i say they should be proud even if not YEC. WE are the real threat in numbers and persuading others. ID is for the very educated/interested people. <br /><br />Yes creationist, meaning yec, is used as a slur but the modern creationism movement is so famous so quick that the slur concept is vanishing.<br /><br />by the way. if some goof ball judge says teaching God created the universe is impermissible religious doctrine then tell same judge that not teaching it IS JUST AS MUCH a state opinion that GOD didn't created the universe SINCE the subject of origin of it and so the truth are being interfered with by the state censorship law.<br />Think it through better Yanks. I know Canada is just as bad but we have no heritage of the people keeping a eye on thier leaders. WE still trust our British masters.<br /><br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2263167088633036082015-07-21T21:27:22.676-04:002015-07-21T21:27:22.676-04:00Or criminally ignorant.Or criminally ignorant.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.com