Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Valjean]

He did become a Christian so belonging to a Christian organisation should be expected.
I don't see how being a Christian makes cognitive bias obvious.
True science doesn't align itself to any particular religious viewpoint. Scientists come from all sorts of religious viewpoints and worldviews.

The bias lies in the uncritical acceptance of a God-premise constraining subsequent, 'scientific' conclusions and interpretations of evidence.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

True science doesn't align itself to any particular religious viewpoint. Scientists come from all sorts of religious viewpoints and worldviews.

Correct.

I don't see how being a Christian makes cognitive bias obvious.

When an organization claims to be “scientific” and then includes a “Statement of Faith” as quoted in post #58…..

Also putting out a journal whose first edition announced its purpose as being includes:
“it is hoped that it will be instrumental in helping the organization achieve its primary purpose of witnessing to the truth of the Scriptures and elucidating the relationship of both the ideology and fruits of science thereto.”
(Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith - Wikipedia)

It has tipped it’s hand that it is attempting to apply christian apologetics to science…..


As you have conceded:

True science doesn't align itself to any particular religious viewpoint.

Would you not agree that “Christian” is a “particular religious viewpoint”?

It is very obvious that it is (as quoted in post #58)
“a religious organization”, not a “scientific” organization despite the fact that some of it’s members are scientists or people in
science-related disciplines.

 

[exchemist]

A purpose can include a function, but, in science, function doesn't imply purpose.

I was commenting on function as a technical, scientific term, sans implied goal or purpose. Biologists will speak of the function of photosynthesis or the coagulation cascade, for example, but won't call it a purpose, except informally.

Yes and that's a fair distinction. However I had in mind the way in which Garte uses the term purpose in his essay way in Biologos. As I said in my earlier remarks about it, I'm not sure he has a very clear message, but all he is asserting really is that purpose, in the sense of goal-directed behaviour, is a feature of organisms. He uses this to claim there is such a thing as purpose in the universe.

His closing paragraphs are perhaps worth quoting:

At this time, we don’t have a firm answer as to how self-replication began, but research is ongoing into many of its aspects, including the origin and evolution of the genetic code and of the protein synthesis machinery. I believe that, like so many other modern discoveries in biology, cosmology, and physics, the answer will point us to see the truth about ourselves and all of life, which is neither purposeless, pitiless, nor indifferent.

As Christians, let us gaze at all the wonders of this created world with praise and worship of its Creator. And, as scientists, let us delve deeply into mysteries like the origin of protein synthesis, which leads to the power of evolution, the magic of the diversity of life, and, of course, to that creature who bears God’s image, and who therefore cares about all this—us humans.

Note that he doesn't make any special claim for life, just that both it and discoveries in other branches of science lead, in his view as a Christian, to the idea of purpose in the universe. So really it's just an aesthetic claim in favour of God as creator, of exactly the sort that was inspired in scientists in earlier eras when they contemplated the wonders of the physical world they were uncovering. So fairly unremarkable, it seems to me. There is however a distinct sleight of hand going on, in that he identifies purpose at the trivial level of the activities of organisms and then makes what to me looks like an unjustified jump to claiming some kind of overall purpose in the world. I don't see that that necessarily follows.

But to be clear, on the basis of the Biologos article at least, he is not a creationist in the modern sense, of someone who claims life and its diversity arose by magic poofing. I'm not sure whether @Brian2 appreciates that.

 

[Brian2]

It is if you are interested in a 43 minute sermon filling the gaps with god.

The Future Science Gaps is part of the video. That's when atheists say "We don't know the answer but science will find it".

 

[Brian2]

Those are all great qualifiers for expertise in biochemistry.
But when weighing in on religion, does he actually apply
the scientific method to his claim for not just any of the
many gods people believe in, but the specific Christian
god named "God"?

No, but does a good job with the question of whether a God exists or not, for which he has reasons from science.
Which part of science shows that God does not exist?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Which part of science shows that God does not exist?

None; you can’t prove a negative.

However, you should be able to prove a positive….
Which part of science shows that a God DOES exist?

 

[Brian2]

It doesn’t have to be known. It’s just Ockham’s Razor: if teleonomy can account for what we observe, there no need for the additional postulate of presumed purpose. From what I read in his Biologos piece, he is saying no more than that there is purpose, in a minor sense, in an organism hunting its prey or moving towards the light.

Yes I suppose there is purpose or function in an organism hunting it's prey, or moving towards the light. Noble says that there are identifiable and empirically testable goals of organisms, and it seems he is not the only biologism who sees teleology in it all.
Teleonomy might be an atheist way to describe it of course, with Ockham's Razor not proving anything one way or the other.
And of course it is not known whether a God is not needed for these things to have been in organisms, so it cannot really be called teleonomy because it is not known that God is not needed.
But if Noble is correct and there are identifiable and empirically testable goals in organisms then teleonomy could be the wrong word.
How would something like that be tested? I don't know.
It does appear that the preservation of existing functionality is a goal however, considing the complex processes in the genes that would have had to work well from the start to evolve into something better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but does a good job with the question of whether a God exists or not, for which he has reasons from science.
Which part of science shows that God does not exist?

You may be using a black and white fallacy. No one has been claiming that science shows that God does not exist. Science is neutral on God. That was the problem with the whole video. There is no evidence for God. He did not present any. He only gave poor arguments for God that would only convince those that could not reason rationally. The best that science can do is to reject specific versions of God.

But in general if anyone claims that certain observations prove or disprove a general God they have no clue and are not arguing rationally. It is a shame when one misuses the respect and authority that one has earned over the years to do so. That is one of the fastest ways to lose that respect and authority.

 

[exchemist]

Yes I suppose there is purpose or function in an organism hunting it's prey, or moving towards the light. Noble says that there are identifiable and empirically testable goals of organisms, and it seems he is not the only biologism who sees teleology in it all.
Teleonomy might be an atheist way to describe it of course, with Ockham's Razor not proving anything one way or the other.
And of course it is not known whether a God is not needed for these things to have been in organisms, so it cannot really be called teleonomy because it is not known that God is not needed.
But if Noble is correct and there are identifiable and empirically testable goals in organisms then teleonomy could be the wrong word.
How would something like that be tested? I don't know.
It does appear that the preservation of existing functionality is a goal however, considing the complex processes in the genes that would have had to work well from the start to evolve into something better.

They would not have had to work well, necessarily, just work. From then on the adaptive advantage from reliable replication would take care of it.

 

[exchemist]

The Future Science Gaps is part of the video. That's when atheists say "We don't know the answer but science will find it".

What's the time stamp for that part of the video? I might watch that to see exactly what he is saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Future Science Gaps is part of the video. That's when atheists say "We don't know the answer but science will find it".

That appears to be a misrepresentation. Such claims need a quote and a link to the actual claim so that one can show that it was made in context. I have never seen any atheist that I respect claim that all questions will be answered by the sciences. But I have seen reasonable predictions about specific questions where promising research is going on.

This takes me back to Behe and his Irreducible Complexity claims. He found some problems in biology that at that time has no answer. A big part of that was because they were rather recent discoveries. Would it be unreasonable to say that those problems would probably be solved some day? No, not at all. It was not as if there were problems that had scientists stumped for ages. Would it be unreasonable to say that most of those problems would be solved before Behe's book hit the shelves? Well that might be a bit too optimistic but if I remember correctly that was what happened. And since then all of his examples have been shown not to be IC. Yet that does not stop ignorant creationists from claiming that all sorts of events in evolution are Irreducibly Complex today. And those are often events that have been explained for more than fifty years.

 

[Brian2]

Why? Why would all the complexity of modern organisms necessarily have existed in a four billion year old microbe? The original organisms didn't even have DNA, or oxygen based respiration, or need for an immune system. It was an anærobic, pathogen and competitor-free, RNA world.
Mutation happens. Change/evolution has occurred. Complexity has increased.

The simple first life form would have to be pretty complex to work, and to pass on the original information and the variations accurately to succeeding generations the error prevention mechanisms would need to be in place already. More complexity.

The code is copied from one template onto another, onto another. Where is the interpretation?
It's just copying.

Sy Garte is the professor and he also quotes others also as saying there is interpretation. eg In The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al Albert says "the conversion of information in (messenger) RNA represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols".
It seems this is not controversial in the world of science.

So the Bible is the ultimate biochemical authority, its authors familiar with molecular chemistry?!

What? Really?

Garte has not explained why chemical abiogenesis is impossible, or why magic poofing is the only reasonable alternative.

Garte does undate us on what is happening in abiogenesis and that the more questions and problems are answered the more pop up.
He says that chemical evolution is a new term and a bit iffy because it is assumed that chemicals will just evolve,,,,,,,,, no mechanism for evolution and with chemicals in nature not really being co operative and going in directions we would hope they would go for what we want.
Producing an evolution mechanism, a system and so putting teleology, a goal into the whole thing is needed.

And man will never fly....

We aren't talking about solving problems of human flight, we are talking about whether science can work out what might have happened in the past for life forms to have evolved.
You sound like you are using that atheist future science of the gaps. "Science has solved problems in the past and so will solve them in the future".
Using this of course presumes that science can never realise that the naturalistic answer might be wrong.

No. apparently he's ignoring the progress since Miller-Urey.

No, he knows that many things have been answered but also knows that there are now more questions and problems.

True, it's beyond our technology, but the mechanisms are known and familiar. Taken as a whole, the complexity of biochemistry overwhelms him, and he takes solace in bypassing the intricacy with an appeal to magic.

He is a professor so I don't think the complexity overwhelms him. I think it overwhelms me but that he is in a better position to see it for what it is and that it could not happen in nature.

There isn't a "right" environment. An "intelligent design" isn't necessary. Life works with what it has. It develops and evolves to fit the environment it's in, not vice-versa. His reason is personal incredulity.

But at this stage he is talking about chemicals in environments in nature and not about life with evolution mechanisms there to enable evolution of chemicals into the first life form,,,,,,,,,, luca.

What confirmation bias? Atheists make no claims to confirm. It's the theists making the claim. The burden of proof is theirs.

OK atheists have no confirmation bias and see everything as it is.
But this is not about science and proofs it is about being reasonable in understanding origins and being able to see that the naturalistic approach in science is not working and that science actually points to something more.
But that is not about tests to see if a God did it or not, or burden of proof.
When it comes to theology and science, atheists always want scientific proofs for things that are not science.

Notice what things?
Why would any scientist abandon her research, throw up her hands and claim "Goddidit"? The deeper science looks into things, the more complexity is usually found, and the more questions are generated.
Perhaps Garte is just a quitter...

Notice things like translation of language in genetics points to intelligence behind it.
He retired, not he is in the much easier field of convincing atheists that God is real and that science points to that.

Other biologists weren't researching causes, and the objections were mostly from the religious and those who felt their spiritual significance threatened.
What appears obvious is often noticed only in hindsight.
Current biologists know everything Garte does, but see no reason to appeal to magic.

Most current biologists are atheists (89%) but that can't explain it because atheists have no confirmation bias.
But they are all scientists and use occham's Razor and need verifiable results to propose a God and just keep plodding on with and in science and of course even if they see the problems cannot suggest God did it if they want their careers to last.

He offers no substantive reason to abandon chemistry and appeal to magic, only his incredulity.

I don't think it is about abondoning chemistry, it is actually about seeing where the chemistry is pointing and not being ruled by the scientific method when science has it's limits, which humans should be willing to admit. And of course to also admit that even if science came up with a possible pathway for life to evolve, that would be educated guess and not verifiable science.

Yes, a belief in magic does make it easier to abandon a need for evidence or a physical mechanism, and accept a magician. Faith is belief without evidence. Reasonable people ask for evidence before accepting a fantastic claim.Would you accept a belief in leprechauns, platypuses or orcs without evidence?

So you say that Sy Garte was not presenting any evidence for what he was saying,,,,,,,,,,,, that all he was doing was making claims?
I thought he was presenting evidence for what he was saying, but maybe nothing that could be shown scientifically to be true,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just as it cannot be shown scientifically that atheism or naturalism is true.

 

[McBell]

The Future Science Gaps is part of the video. That's when atheists say "We don't know the answer but science will find it".

Better chance of science finding it than someone showing "GodDidIt"...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when atheists say "We don't know the answer but science will find it".

I don't recall any critical thinker saying that, although it's likely that a percent or two have. What the empiricist says is that knowledge only comes from experiencing and correctly interpreting reality. That is not a statement that all questions are answerable this way, but rather, that none are answerable by any other method, that is, that we may never find all the answers, but those that we do find will be found by this method and only this method.

I hope you understand the difference. And by knowledge and answers, I mean ideas that are demonstrably correct and can be used to predict outcomes. The hunches, gut feelings, and intuitions that many call truth or answers don't rise to that standards and thus don't deserve those names.

Which part of science shows that God does not exist?

God as in the god of Abraham, the one who allegedly created the universe including man in a few days and later flooded it? That god doesn't exist because as science has revealed, none of that happened.

Change that to generic gods, and the answer is that nothing has demonstrated that they don't exist, but that's not a good reason to believe that they do.

things like translation of language in genetics points to intelligence behind it.

But that doesn't happen in genetics as is discussed next:

"the conversion of information in (messenger) RNA represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols".

Those are all metaphorical uses of the words information, translation, language, and symbol (and code, which you didn't use here). In their literal senses, those words all refer to states or products of conscious minds. The biological process is unconscious and therefore has no information, just form, like the shapes and charges of nucleotides. Literal languages are artificial and conventional; they use symbols with no innate meanings that have to be learned to be used to communicate, and two or more must be learned to translate one into the other. And the subcellular processes involve no literal languages or symbols.

Think about that for a moment. There is no such thing as information absent consciousness, just form. When that form impresses onto a consciousness, it then becomes information available to that mind. The form comes in and informs the mind. These molecules know no languages and have coined no symbols. They generate new cells passively and unconsciously according to the laws of physics.

atheists have no confirmation bias and see everything as it is.

Critical thinkers are trained to avoid faith-based thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The simple first life form would have to be pretty complex to work, and to pass on the original information and the variations accurately to succeeding generations the error prevention mechanisms would need to be in place already. More complexity.

Why? From what I have seen it would not require much more than self replicating RNA. There does not appear to be need for much more than that, but then it all depends upon how one defines "life".

Sy Garte is the professor and he also quotes others also as saying there is interpretation. eg In The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al Albert says "the conversion of information in (messenger) RNA represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols".
It seems this is not controversial in the world of science.

Yes, but so what? You are probably going to use an equivocation fallacy.

What? Really?



Garte does undate us on what is happening in abiogenesis and that the more questions and problems are answered the more pop up.
He says that chemical evolution is a new term and a bit iffy because it is assumed that chemicals will just evolve,,,,,,,,, no mechanism for evolution and with chemicals in nature not really being co operative and going in directions we would hope they would go for what we want.
Producing an evolution mechanism, a system and so putting teleology, a goal into the whole thing is needed.

I doubt if he is an expert in the field of abiogenesis. And chemical evolution is a new concept, it says that the chemicals that formed life may have followed a path that was "guided" in a very similar way that evolution works with life. And you are quite wrong. There are mechanisms involved, but these are chemical and thermodynamic ones. A full understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that it supports evolution and it almost certainly supports abiogenesis as well.

We aren't talking about solving problems of human flight, we are talking about whether science can work out what might have happened in the past for life forms to have evolved.
You sound like you are using that atheist future science of the gaps. "Science has solved problems in the past and so will solve them in the future".
Using this of course presumes that science can never realise that the naturalistic answer might be wrong.

It is an apt analogy. And please, don't make up your own nonsensical terms.

No, he knows that many things have been answered but also knows that there are now more questions and problems.

Well good for him. That happens quite often in the sciences.

He is a professor so I don't think the complexity overwhelms him. I think it overwhelms me but that he is in a better position to see it for what it is and that it could not happen in nature.

Then why did he use such poor arguments?

But at this stage he is talking about chemicals in environments in nature and not about life with evolution mechanisms there to enable evolution of chemicals into the first life form,,,,,,,,,, luca.

Correct, he seems to have a problem with abiogenesis.

OK atheists have no confirmation bias and see everything as it is.
But this is not about science and proofs it is about being reasonable in understanding origins and being able to see that the naturalistic approach in science is not working and that science actually points to something more.
But that is not about tests to see if a God did it or not, or burden of proof.
When it comes to theology and science, atheists always want scientific proofs for things that are not science.

We try to avoid it. No one has said that we do not have it. But atheists are much more likely to admit their errors. At least you can see that far more often here.

And no, you are not telling the truth. The problem is that it is some theists, such as you, that want scientific confirmation since the sciences do refute specific parts of your beliefs. That is why you try to find science hacks that support you. When your science based claims are refuted that is not atheists demanding scientific proof for God. Most atheists know that a general concept of God cannot be refuted or confirmed with science. You keep making this error.

Notice things like translation of language in genetics points to intelligence behind it.
He retired, not he is in the much easier field of convincing atheists that God is real and that science points to that.

So what?

Most current biologists are atheists (89%) but that can't explain it because atheists have no confirmation bias.
But they are all scientists and use occham's Razor and need verifiable results to propose a God and just keep plodding on with and in science and of course even if they see the problems cannot suggest God did it if they want their careers to last.

Oh my, no. Kenneth Miller. 'Nuff said.

I don't think it is about abondoning chemistry, it is actually about seeing where the chemistry is pointing and not being ruled by the scientific method when science has it's limits, which humans should be willing to admit. And of course to also admit that even if science came up with a possible pathway for life to evolve, that would be educated guess and not verifiable science.

Sorry, but introducing unsupported "God done did it, yep, yep, yep" nonsense into chemistry is abandoning chemistry. Once again , the sciences are neutral about God. If chemistry confirms abiogenesis, which it is getting rather close to doing, that will not refute God. It may refute particular beliefs in God, but it will not refute a general belief in a God.

So you say that Sy Garte was not presenting any evidence for what he was saying,,,,,,,,,,,, that all he was doing was making claims?
I thought he was presenting evidence for what he was saying, but maybe nothing that could be shown scientifically to be true,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just as it cannot be shown scientifically that atheism or naturalism is true.

Yes! That was the point. That is why I tried to go over the concept of evidence with you so that you would see it. None of what he presented was evidence. You do not understand the concept. He does understand the nature of evidence and should have known what he was doing wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but does a good job with the question of whether a God exists or not, for which he has reasons from science.
Which part of science shows that God does not exist?

No part.
But what part shows it exists?
I've seen no scientific argument for it.

 

[Brian2]

Yes. And the reason this kind of argument is so stupid is that it presumes evolution theory negates the "God did it" theory. That these theories are somehow mutually exclusive.

No he says that evolution and the Bible can be compatible and so any use of evolution by atheists/skeptics to deny God is unwarranted.

And this is even weirder, as 'natural design' is what science studies. There could be no science without it. AND it is the very actuality that unites the "God did it" theory with the theory of evolution. Natural design and the evolutionary process that results from it is "God doing it".

He claims that science is full of comments by scientists that there is design and mentions Dawkins also who says this but claims it is just an illusion that it looks like design.
Garte says that atheist have a rational process to hang their hat on, an intellectual reason, with evolution, to say that there is no God. But it does not work when the Bible does not disagree with evolution.
It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion.

 

[exchemist]

No he says that evolution and the Bible can be compatible and so any use of evolution by atheists/skeptics to deny God is unwarranted.

He claims that science is full of comments by scientists that there is design and mentions Dawkins also who says this but claims it is just an illusion that it looks like design.
Garte says that atheist have a rational process to hang their hat on, an intellectual reason, with evolution, to say that there is no God. But it does not work when the Bible does not disagree with evolution.
It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion.

Are you quite sure he says that? Where does he say it in the video?

 

[PureX]

No he says that evolution and the Bible can be compatible and so any use of evolution by atheists/skeptics to deny God is unwarranted.

He is correct on both counts since the Bible is not intended to be an historical account of the material origins of mankind. It is intended to be a mythical representation of the origins of human behavior.

He claims that science is full of comments by scientists that there is design and mentions Dawkins also who says this but claims it is just an illusion that it looks like design.

Science studies the designing elements and processes that create the physical world that we inhabit.

What is or isn't an illusion depends upon one's perspective.

Garte says that atheist have a rational process to hang their hat on, an intellectual reason, with evolution, to say that there is no God. But it does not work when the Bible does not disagree with evolution.
It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion.

The world is full of fools that unfortunately feel the need to speak out.

 

[Brian2]

The "apparatus" is simple: reproduction with variation. It doesn't depend on modern, DNA-based biochemistry.
Presumably, LUCA developed with RNA copying chemistry already in place for reproduction.
Evolution is parsimoneous, it works with and modifies what it already has, sometimes bypassing simple solutions, sometimes creating unnecessary complexity.

That's his problem. Current researchers have no such reservations, and mechanisms are rapidly being uncovered.

Mechanisms can be postulated easily enough I suppose, but his problem seems to be chemicals actually evolving in nature when it is hard enough in a controlled environment to get the results hoped for.

Yet purpose remains both unevidenced and without a discovered need. Divine creation remains an abdication of the search for explanation or mechanism.

If Dennis Noble is correct then goals have been observed and are testable.
There seems to be a goal in the evolution process to preserve what has evolved already, hence the checking and correction chemistry in the Genetic system.

There is no evidence for purpose or a goal.

So you disagree with Noble. OK that's fine.