'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are inherently NOT disciplines

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Alive said:

I will post some math related to the probability mechanics related to first life possibilities without an intelligence involved.

I wouldn't bother. The math probabilities espoused by ID or YEC proponents consistently make major erroneous assumptions.

[Alive]

I put this together for some folks who are not believers.

The relevant math and some verbiage was borrowed from math folks beyond me, but the relative numbers can be grasped with an average intelligence.

Trust the math. My only interest in this stuff and other stuff, is due to the admonition in Romans Chapter 1. The concept caught my attention when I was young.

................................

When we toss a coin, we expect it to land showing either a head or tail. We say from experience that the probability of the coin landing “heads” is one half, or we can say “tails” has a 50% chance of showing up. We also know from experience that this does not mean when we throw a head first, the next throw will be a tail. It simply means that if we keep tossing coins long enough, then half the time the coin lands, it will show heads, and half the time tails.

However, even in the idea of “1/2 heads” are some assumptions or beliefs which few of us bother to check when throwing coins. We take it for granted that the coin weighs the same on both head and tail sides, so it gives an unbiased result. We rarely check to see if the coin has both a head and a tail, even though rare double headed coins do exist.

An interesting situation arises when two separate events occur at the same time, e.g. tossing a coin and throwing a die. (Most of you will call it a dice, but that is plural for more than one die.) If we ask what is the “chance” of throwing a head and a 6 at the same time, a simple look at all the possible results of throwing coins and dice will show the answer.

Since the coin has two sides and only one head, the possibility of a head is 1/2.

Since the die has six sides and only one face with 6 on it, the possibility of six is 1/6.

The only trouble is that half of the times the die lands showing a 6, the coin will show a tail, the other half of the times we throw a 6, the coin would show a head. So the probability of throwing the head and the 6 together, must be one half of the sixes, or put mathematically, 1/2 x 1/6. This, of course, is 1/12. Again we must remember that this does not mean one in every 12 throws, but if you throw for long enough, 1/12 of all throws would have both a 6 and a head.

Let us extend this idea further. (A problem for any Grade 10 math’s class.) Suppose we have a bucket in which are placed ten (10) identical discs, each numbered from 1–10. The question is: Can chance methods enable us to count from 1 to 10? If only one disc is to be selected from the bucket, noted and replaced, and we require disc 1 first, disc 2 second, etc. in the correct sequence from 1–10, what is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?

The maths are relatively easy. Since there is only one disc numbered 1, there can be only one chance in ten (1/10) of selecting it. After we replace the first disc, the chance of selecting the disc number 2 is the same—1/10. In fact, every separately numbered disc has one chance in ten of being selected. The probability of selecting the first one followed by the second one in correct order must be 1/10 x 1/10 or 1/100. To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or (1/10)¹⁰. This means that you would select the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way “chance” requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.

Further tests exist to measure how efficient chance is at producing design. The following is fascinating. The question is: What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase—“the theory of evolution”? This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase—“the theory of evolution.” Therefore “chance” will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)²³ outcomes!

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x10³²) (gasp!). Suppose “chance” uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then “chance” could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so.

In  my own words:

Not to be confused with Darwin's Theory of evolution or Neo Darwinism.

Note: numbers in parenthesis are exponents.

A Planck Length: consider a particle or dot .01mm in size, which is the smallest the unaided human eye can facilitate. If that dot were as large as the observable universe, then another dot that size juxtaposed within the universe provides a scale for a Planck Length…10(-33) centimeters

A quanta of time: as measured by the time it takes light to travel that distance. Wicked short period of time and the shortest span of time that makes sense within our understanding of quantum physics and the shortest period of time within which a ‘physical effect’ can occur.

Since the ‘big bang’: there have been approximately 10(140) of these units of time as worked out by a guy named Bill Dembski. So, there have been basically 10(140) units of time in the universe since the big bang where a physical effect could happen. That many ‘opportunities’ so to speak for a thing to occur. Dembski calculates this by factoring the number of elementary particles in the universe 10(80), times the number of seconds since the big bang 10(17) times the number of possible interactions per second 10(43).

This is referred to as the total probabilistic resources of the observable universe.

Other mathematicians have calculated the probabilistic resources to be more restrictive—University Physicist Bret Van de Sande at 2.6 x 10(92) and MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd at 10(120).

What are the chances (all of the many other necessary factors aside) of a simple 150 unit sequence of amino acids coming together to form a viable functional protein? 10(164)

To put that into perspective comparing 10(140) to 10(164) ——the second number is roughly 24 orders of magnitude greater than the first or roughly a trillion, trillion times larger.

The above is only a small portion of the relevant probability mechanics involved in ‘first life’ occurring by ‘chance alone’.

Staggering, isn’t it?

The relevant information borrowed from sources cited in the book by Stephen Meyer ’Signature in the Cell’.

[The Barbarian]

The problem with this idea can be summed up with the help of a deck of cards.  

Take a regular deck, shuffle it completely, and then deal out one card at a time, noting the order.

The likelihood of that order appearing by chance is  1.0, divided by 52!.     That is a very tiny number:

1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68‬

or about  ‭ 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000124, statistically so close to impossible as to be effectively so.

And yet, it happens every time.    So your math just "proved" that shuffled cards are impossible.

Your reasoning is equivalent to finding an arrow stuck in a tree, drawing a bulls-eye around it, and marveling at the accuracy.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Alive said:

Yes--everything renders down to the molecular level in biology. However, the molecular level extends from protein bases through to  DNA/RNA and cells and the 'information' required to build body plans.[/quote]

Of course, the biological is governed by natural selection, so it's not a matter of chance, even if kinetic theory shows that molecular motion is random.

4 hours ago, Alive said:

BTW--I absolutely do not believe origin of life is possible chemically strictly by that thing people call 'chance'.

Neither did Darwin, who supposed that God did it.

4 hours ago, Alive said:

I repeat--I am not a biologist. I have informed myself just enough to satisfy my ongoing desire to see my 'Creator' in His 'Creation'.

The details matter.   It's why scientists overwhelmingly accept evolutionary theory; the huge number of confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory make that compelling.

4 hours ago, Alive said:

Yes--I understand Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

Which of Darwin's four points do you think might be faulty?

 

[Jostler]

as if evolution is science???  oh my

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Jostler said:

as if evolution is science???

Evolution is observable every day. You may disagree with the implications of evolution, such as universal common descent, but your statement as written doesn't make any sense.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Jostler said:

as if evolution is science???  oh my

 So I'll ask the same of you.  Which of Darwin's four points do you think is faulty?

 

[BibleGuy]

On 8/22/2019 at 4:03 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

           

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed  "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi‑scientific manner. ¹²⁸

 

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.

 

 Modern humanists, increasingly anti‑Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo‑Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti‑spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti‑Christian and anti‑Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.¹³⁰

 

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution­- Uniformitarianism‑ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti‑Genesis than they were pro‑scientific.

 

Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy “Uniformitarianism” which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.

The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in 2004):

1. In the past decade (1990's) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.

2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).

3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: “Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up”.

4. Gentleman, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.

“Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.

                            

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti‑spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

 

 The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.¹³²

 

The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term "natural selection." The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.

 

 I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. ¹³³

(These are Charles Darwin's own words here)

 

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

 

Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

 

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-­Creation" argument.

 

The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!

 

            For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

                Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.¹³⁹

 

Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.¹⁴⁰

 

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4^th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

 

Yes, MANY Christians are guilty of awful philosophy of science.  It's a stumbling block for others, hindering them from embracing the God of the Bible......it's sad.

But MANY other Christians are GOOD at science....

I like some of the features of www.reasons.org   for example.

And, the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) is also worth checking out.

blessings...

 

[The Barbarian]

On 9/8/2019 at 6:16 PM, dhchristian said:

… I choose to believe in something that I know that is not scientifically possible: the spontaneous generation that leads to evolution”.

Who spoke those words? George Wald, Nobel prize in medicine... Ain't self deception great?

 

On 9/8/2019 at 6:52 PM, dhchristian said:

Just showing how scientist lie to themselves all the time. If God created life, then could he not have created it in 6 days, I mean he is almighty God, right?

The argument that God must do everything He is capable of doing, seems to be a rather weak one.    Creationists believe that God is not wise or powerful enough to have created a universe where the earth itself brings forth life as He intended.  

But God Himself tells us that He did.  

And that's good enough for me.   It should be good enough for you, too.

As you know, even Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things.   Evolutionary theory assumes life began somehow, and describes how it changes over time.  So it doesn't depend on any particular way life began.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by The Barbarian

[Paul James]

On 9/9/2019 at 10:35 AM, The Barbarian said:

Pasteur acknowledged evolution:

Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.

Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: The man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club.

Clearly, a lot of scientists who were not biologists and who lived before Darwin's discoveries, did not think of evolution.   Today, almost all scientists, even non-biologists, accept evolution.   There's an important thing to consider in those facts. 

Prior to J.J. Thompson, the existence of atoms was controversial.   For the same reason.

 

If evolution is true, then there was no Adam, no sin, no fall, no Jesus dying on the cross, no resurrection, no new heaven and earth, therefore no gospel, and no hope of salvation, but hope only in this life, and when this life ends, nothing.