This OP may change over time. But for now…
- Devolution
- Rejecting common descent
- Failure to address how designs are actualized
- Materialism and Naturalism
“Devolution” is evolution. Stop trying to convince people that evolution and devolution are opposites.
Present the case for common descent. Address the subject of why IDists ought to accept common descent. Stop trying to convince people that ID and common descent are incompatible.
The designs that the science of intelligent design detects had to be actualized somehow. If the design that was detected is not an instance of an actualized design then it is a mistake to infer that it is designed. Tell us how designs are actualized without appealing to acts of special creation by a supernatural designer. There needs to be an alternative to God as The Designer who actualized his designs by something other than natural processes or there will always be a cloud over the claim that ID is a “strictly scientific” theory.
It’s not clear to me how introducing the immaterial into science would work. As things stand right now I see appeals to the non-material or the non-natural as unscientific and at odds with claims that ID is a strictly scientific theory.
Thoughts?
ETA: Mung has special powers, Gregory.
newton,
Well, why not?😇
The pay is probably pretty good.
What else if not scientific findings would change the view of natural selection’s role in the evolution of complex traits?
What happened, mainly, was population genetics, combined with the realization that not every trait had to be an adaptation. That and lots of data, from fossils to genetics to molecules.
Just seems like it would be hard the find a line where one stops and the other starts.
newton,
Perhaps there’s a little creationism in all of us. 😈
Certainly it is simpler.
And there’s no academic standards and demands to advance that kind of “career.”
Gregory,
Are you (and your high-brow philosophy) on notice to refrain from approaching within 200 meters of the Discovery Institute and its employees?
For everyone’s safety.
phoodoo,
I got along with them just fine in Seattle at the DI. They’re not bad people & I don’t dislike them, am not angry at them, don’t hate them, etc.
They’re just wrong, duplicitous, spreading fake & damaging ideas for science, philosophy & theology/worldview discourse, & still not taking ownership for their errors after having been called out numerous times by calm, kind, concerned scholars, including people who hold the same religion as they do. They just ignore criticism in pushing their ideological agenda. Their unwillingness to take ownership & accountability for this is a major reason I oppose them actively & think their movement would be better if it would dissipate.
Creationists are statistically lowly-educated people following a few marginal figures as their leaders. Does anyone dispute this? No. Otoh, IDism has tricked a wider cross-section of people with its ‘big tent’ seduction, some of who are more educated than their creationist partners. It’s the fanatical ideology of leading IDists, Meyer, West, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Behe, et al. that is surprising. Such a motley crew of belligerent self-described ‘radicals’ & ‘revolutionaries’ who are incredibly outmatched & who simply won’t succeed yet keep trying just couldn’t happen in Canada.
Instead, we got Jordan Peterson, who not a few IDists quite like.
True, but there is the direction pointing to our solar system and the Earth which is easy to detect no matter where the observer is…
No? How do you determine the direction of our motion through space?
What’s the “axis of evil”? Isn’t the CMB dipole, anisotropies in multi-poles and the Sun’s orbit in space aligned on an axis in a very predictable way, something like that?
Gregory,
How do you feel about the NCSE?
They do, but global flood is different… It leaves particular evidence…
If you use the term creator broadly…
Gregory,
Pardon? Is this Byers’ brother brother or something???
Boy!!!
In theory… Where would we find the experimental evidence if I wanted to re-test it? Let’s ask John Harshman to tell us how to experimentally test the adaption of flightless birds… Can they regain the keel? Can some birds lose it at least a little bit?
Speculations abound but that’s not really science until proven by experimental tests…right?
Ah, yes, a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
Maybe people all over the world tend to exaggerate the stories that they tell.
Right. So was there a global flood or not as described in the bibble, in your “opinion”?
I, for one, prefer to believe that J-Mac’s kids are hard at work in the basement right now replicating the double slit experement, preparing to prove “the quantum”.
Or, maybe there was a global flood?
Why would one maybe be better than another?
What evidence would be left by a global flood?
Question: In your professional, experimental scientist opinion do you think a dog can collapse the weave function? If a dog is shown the double-slit equipment used in the experiment and then the picture of the same equipment, will the weave function collapse by the dog just thinking about it?
If it does, what does it mean?
If it doesn’t, what does that mean?
You can try to perform your own experiment by purchasing your own equipment…that is if you saved 15.50 …
Laser Double-Slit STEM Box (includes 12 different "Beam-Splitters")
If you don’t have 15.50 to spare, let us know and my kids will chip in and ship it to you…
What’s the evidence of not so global flood? Have you ever seen the aftermath of a town after the flood and the waters that were subsiding for a long time?
I wonder what J-Mac has been weaving?
Either way, it doesn’t mean anything.
And we see that worldwide, do we?
Nobody here thinks there was a global flood, if that’s what you were wondering. You can stop being so coy. Just say if you think the evidence supports the proposition that there was a global flood as described in the bible.
My “scientist” option?
Perhaps you meant my “scientific” opinion?
In that case, I don’t have a “scientific” option to offer. I have my personal opinion based on my knowledge of the subject. I have not personally confirmed any quantum phenomena experimentally. Therefore my opinion cannot be scientific in the way that you mean.
I think you meant to say “let me know”, as after all I’m only talking to J-Mac. Although ultimately were I to take you up on your offer I would have let you “all” know which you could then refer to as “us” I would still only have let J-Mac know and J-Mac would have let everybody else know.
So the correct word, I believe, would have indeed been me.
Also you probably don’t need all the commas and the triple dots don’t really mean anything at all. Did you see how I used the commas there to surround “I believe”? And it gave it a certain kind of emphasis? When you just drop in a comma randomly in the middle, sentence it just makes it look like you missed class that day. It detracts from your message.
And your message is oh so very important J-Mac.
If english is not your first language, I apologise. If english is your first language, then I apologise yet more for the education you have received. It’s inexcusable.
Perhaps this?
Have you ever witnessed the aftermath of a flood in a town where the waters took a long time to subside? That’s the type of evidence for a localised flooding event I mean.
Where I come from we spell English with the uppercase letter…Now, if English is not your first language, I apologize…
If not, then your ignorance is noted…
We also spell apologize and localized…
I really enjoy reading your comments especially those that have no grammar structure whatsoever… in any language… lol
Yes, let’s play point out the mistakes game! I went first, so it’s only fair it’s your go next.
What you don’t realize is that you’ve been playing all along you’ve just never noticed it until it’s been rubbed in your face.
Along with the dozens of spelling and grammar mistakes you make in every post you make far more egregious mistakes of comprehension. You just are immune to correction with those, those errors being pointed out now is just so much noise in your trolling. But call you out on your spelling! Boo-hoo! Does that ever get a reaction!
What’s the day job J-Mac? Electric grill repair man? What is it that the world needs doing by a person such as you? By someone as erudite and wise as J-Mac?
Remind me first, who’s the President of NCSE right now?
About that evidence for a global flood J-Mac?
Is it along the lines of some sort of flounce out by any chance? As, obviously, that’s what I’m aiming for with all this.
A Real Quantum Scientist™ is way ahead of you there, J-M:
How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog
Other publications of Chad Orzel, Real Quantum Scientist™
,
As it happens, any stray photon can “collapse the wave function”
That’s why quantum computing is so hard.
I am surprised you even ask.
This is a dog we’re talking about, right?
Not some mangy 1/√2( |alive> + |dead> ) cat!
Have you never heard of Wigner’s best friend, the dog?
I only demand the answer to this question from the cream of the cream at TSZ…😂
But think about this way: Isn’t this a great opportunity to test if dogs, or even other animals, are conscious?
Dean Radin, and many others, have experimentally proven that consciousness can collapse the weave function in the double-slit experimenent even thousands of miles away by just thinking about the experiment or keeping it in mind….
Why not show to the dog or a cat, or even a monkey, the equipment for the double-slit experiment, take a picture of that equipment and show it to the animal at precisely determined times and see if the sensor detects the collapse of the wave function at those exact times…
Sorry, but virtually no modern, Real QM Scientists accept that consciousness is needed to “collapse the wave function”.
The example of quantum computers is real: the reason they are so hard to build is that to work they must remain in a cohered quantum state, but any interaction with a stray photon will “collapse” that cohered state. Mr YouTube:
Dean Radin does not appear to be a Real QM Scientist.
“it is therefore not a “measurement” by a conscious observer that is needed to “collapse” wave functions. It is the irreversible interaction of the quantum system with another system, whether quantum or approximately classical. The interaction must be one that changes the information about the system. And that means a local entropy decrease (the recorded information) and overall entropy increase to make the information stable enough to be observed by an experimenter and therefore be a measurement.”
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/quantum/observer/
What are you sorry about?
Have you reviewed the results of the experiments?
Tell me what they say exactly…
If you have a hard time believing the results of the experiments, you can perform your own… that is if you are willing to spend $15.50 on the equipment…
My kids did it so could you…You can invite OMgain he is an expert…
Here are instructions:
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/do/Double-slit_experiment
Don’t waste my time anymore because you don’t like the implications of something you have no idea about…
Interpretation: the results of his experiments shed serious doubt on the understanding of QM and imply some kind consciousness to interpret the reality… The doesn’t sit well with the preconceived ideas of materialism… So Dean Radin has to be discredited becuase his experiments can’t be…
You can continue to deceive yourself while smoking a joint legally or not…
I don’t give a damn…
Repeated? Verified?
No need to insult an honest tradesman.
Telephone sanitiser. Somebody has to do it.
Being too polite? Just the Canadian in me!
J-M: Neither of us has the training to do that, including assessing whether the experiments and YT videos we each link are justified in their claims.
So it’s about the process we use to examine the credentials, processes, expertise, and peers of the people and viewpoints we decide are trustworthy. We differ on this.
At the base level, I trust those who are part of the community whose results are we see in everyday technology, like the transistors in your cpu. At deeper levels, I trust the processes they follow because they are have core similarities to processes that work to meet the domain goals in many other domains, from everyday judgement to our judicial system to other domains of science.
That’s where we differ and I guess we always end up completely disagreeing.
As far as I can see, your link on light interference makes the point that the interference depends on the waves being coherent. That’s the same concept of coherence in QM, but in QM it is coherence in the probability (amplitude) waves. A stray photon can break coherence in quantum systems, and that is a measurement since it decoheres the system. Consciousness is not relevant to measurement/”collapsing the wave function” (scare quotes intended, BTW)..
As it turns out, I don’t enjoy smoking cannabis as much as I remember I did when I was younger. So I don’t do it much if at all. Maybe that will change if we ever get legal edibles.
Did my tastes change or am I recollecting things wrong? Dennett asks that in Quining paper, as I recall. Though more about coffee or beer, if memory serves. But he is my community of people I trust, not yours (or I am thinking of FMM? — if so, sorry)
Relevant article, H/T PS.
What the article does not cover is how people decide who to trust and what is objective analysis.
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/canada/people-with-extreme-anti-science-views-know-the-least-but-think-they-know-the-most-study/wcm/8c1fded3-b1ab-46ba-ab40-201c9df46672?fbclid=IwAR0xk8Rj1ut-MTKXNMt8qYcJN3AZT9-ZE-3bPWN3bxZNSLi6SSJxdPHqeGE
This is one of the things that I dislike about Canadians: They say sorry a lot they hardly ever mean it… I like the effort though… 🙂
I know that you really try to defend your preconceived beliefs… I don’t care!
Do you know what 5 sigma measure is? Does newton? How about Mr. Cream of the Cream? Look it up!
If the same results, 5 sigma in Dean Radin’s experiment, could be applied to any of the experiments ever performed that attempted to prove evolutionary theory we wouldn’t have this conversation…
It just hit me! There aren’t any experiments that attempted to prove the evolutionary theory or hypothesis as scientific…
All Darwinist have is the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) run by Lenski… Bacteria are still bacteria and the “evolved” bacteria still use the same genetic code…Nothing new evolved but Behe’s Devolution has been proven again…
Too bad! Such a good idea… lol
Do you even know what 5 sigma is? Pity…
As it happens, I did post-graduate work in statistics, so I do know about 5-sigma.
But of course, for that number to matter, first you must be correct in all of the following: the experimental design, justified hypotheses, associated distributions, and of course the statistical analysis.
None of which Raid appears to have any relevant expertise in for QM. So I see no reason to believe his claims as you depict them.
Take care J-M Although I suppose I may be just saying that to be polite.
BruceS,
Thank you for two excellent links, observation in QM and D-K in science denial
Great reading!
You said upthread “They do, but global flood is different… It leaves particular evidence…”
I asked you to specify what this particular evidence would be. Don’t answer a question with another question, and don’t confuse evidence for a flooded town with evidence for a flooded planet, please.
If you don’t know what particular evidence a global flood would leave behind, that’s cool too. Just say so then.
What experiment are you referring to? Can you provide a link to it?
I suspect J-Mac is a Markov bot. I made one out of his last few OP’s and it’s not that far off how he normally sounds: