Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Brian2]

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's about as bad as the interesting video on Laminin.

 

[Brian2]

That's about as bad as the interesting video on Laminin.

That's not really in the same league when it comes to the science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not really in the same league when it comes to the science.

Neither is the Op video.

Once I heard Creation Science Institute, I knew.

 

[Brian2]

Neither is the Op video.

Once I heard Creation Science Institute, I knew.

I did not see or hear "Creation Science Institute" anywhere.
Here is some information about the speaker.

"Dr. Sy Garte is a biochemist and has been a professor at New York University, University of Pittsburgh, and Rutgers University. He has authored over two hundred scientific publications and four previous books, and has served as division director at the National Institutes of Health. Sy is also the editor in chief of God and Nature magazine and vice president of the Washington, DC, chapter of the American Scientific Affiliation. He is a lay leader in the United Methodist Church."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not see or hear "Creation Science Institute" anywhere.
Here is some information about the speaker.

"Dr. Sy Garte is a biochemist and has been a professor at New York University, University of Pittsburgh, and Rutgers University. He has authored over two hundred scientific publications and four previous books, and has served as division director at the National Institutes of Health. Sy is also the editor in chief of God and Nature magazine and vice president of the Washington, DC, chapter of the American Scientific Affiliation. He is a lay leader in the United Methodist Church."

It appears that he has let his religious views affect his work. As long as he keeps it under control that should not be a problem. But I seriously doubt if he has any evidence at all.

This would be classified as an appeal to false authority fallacy. Yes, he may be an authority on genetics, but if he cannot use the scientific method to tie it to God then it is an appeal to false authority. His rightful authority in genetics probably does not give him any authority when he tries to tie it to God. Again, I have not seen the video nor will I go blindly into a forty five minute video with almost no idea of what it is about. And I hate to say it, but the source looks dishonest. When someone makes a video like this there will be many comments, from all sides. But all of the comments are positive. That indicates that they erased the negatives ones. And it is a good chance that his work was refuted by some of the negative comments.

When I see clear signs of prejudice and bias I tend to ignore the sources.

 

[Brian2]

It appears that he has let his religious views affect his work. As long as he keeps it under control that should not be a problem. But I seriously doubt if he has any evidence at all.

This would be classified as an appeal to false authority fallacy. Yes, he may be an authority on genetics, but if he cannot use the scientific method to tie it to God then it is an appeal to false authority. His rightful authority in genetics probably does not give him any authority when he tries to tie it to God. Again, I have not seen the video nor will I go blindly into a forty five minute video with almost no idea of what it is about. And I hate to say it, but the source looks dishonest. When someone makes a video like this there will be many comments, from all sides. But all of the comments are positive. That indicates that they erased the negatives ones. And it is a good chance that his work was refuted by some of the negative comments.

When I see clear signs of prejudice and bias I tend to ignore the sources.

I have found hour long interviews he has given in which he explains why he changed from atheism to theism and Christianity. I have not listened to them but here is a quote about him in an ad for his book "The Work of His Hands" A scientist's journey from atheism to Faith.

"Raised in a militant atheist family, Sy Garte fell in love with the factual world of science. He became a respected research biochemist with an anti-theistic worldview to bolster his work--and he had no intention of seeking a God he didn't believe in. That is, until the very science he loved led him to question the validity of an atheistic worldview.
His journey to answer the questions that confronted him drew him into becoming a fully committed Christian, determined to show others the truth: modern science doesn't contradict God at all but instead supports Christianity."

He does point out that the scientific method does not tie the origins of life to naturalism. So in that respect it is not fair to expect it to tie anything to God.
But he is a scientist and speaks of science and where it is at in finding answers for the origins of life, and the possible answers. In that respect he is not a false authority, but is an authority.
He does believe in evolution it seems but also says that evolution is not the origins of life anyway and that evolution can fit in with the Biblical Genesis.
He explains things in a simple way which means that even I can understand what he is on about.

 

[Valjean]

Reaction and ommentary on Garte's video:

He begins with an assertion of "obvious and universal" design. It's a major premise in his apology. He posts a chart with three possibilities: Natural selection without purpose -- which he rejects because he can't accept purposelessness; intelligent agency, which he contrasts with blind, random chance -- a strawman; and God, in which he goes back to asserting the "design" indicative of a divine agent in a sort of Kalam argument.
So: need for purpose -- unsupported. Blind, random chance as the atheist position: wrong. Need for a designer: non sequitur, based on his stated, a priori belief in a god ("indicative of a divine agent"), in this case. Even without the a priori belief, the Kalam argument is unsupported.
So he begins with a premise of intentional agency, which is what he's trying to demonstrate, making the whole argument circular.

He goes on to stress our lack of understanding of abiogenesis -- irrelevant, and state, without support, that "there is no biological mechanism can produce somebody who composed Beethoven's fifth symphony, it just doesn't make sense." This is an obvious argument from incredulity.
He goes on to speak of accurate inheritance of a beneficial trait "to all of its offspring" as a vital component of evolution, and asserts evolution can't occur without this universal inheritance. In fact, it's inaccurate inheritance that produces the variation natural selection depends on, plus useful traits don't have to be passed on with every offspring. Just some is sufficient. His assertion doesn't follow.

He expresses his astonishment at how accurate replication could be achieved in something so complicated as a cell -- more incredulity -- ignoring the millions of years natural selection had to perfect the process and eliminate most replication glitches. He says: "this incredibly high level of accuracy...couldn't have just occurred." -- flagrant incredulity!
He reiterates: "accurate self-replication is required for evolution." This is hogwash. Accurate replication would stop evolution. It would produce insufficient variation for evolution to work with. He asserts a circular reasoning fallacy -- which doesn't follow.
Next he quotes another biologist: "The genetic code is deciphered by a complex apparatus that interprets the nucleic acid sequence." Interprets is misleading. It implies understanding and intent. I don't see it. A polymerase just moves along an'unzipped' DNA fork that acts as a template. No interpretation needed.

He talks of "abstract symbolic information, and the impossibility of any natural process to create it. I'm not following the abstract symbolic information bit, or why he says it can't be produced naturally, ie: without magic. I don't feel like going back over it though, so I'll just have to wonder why biologists haven's picked up on this,

To be continued.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have found hour long interviews he has given in which he explains why he changed from atheism to theism and Christianity. I have not listened to them but here is a quote about him in an ad for his book "The Work of His Hands" A scientist's journey from atheism to Faith.

"Raised in a militant atheist family, Sy Garte fell in love with the factual world of science. He became a respected research biochemist with an anti-theistic worldview to bolster his work--and he had no intention of seeking a God he didn't believe in. That is, until the very science he loved led him to question the validity of an atheistic worldview.
His journey to answer the questions that confronted him drew him into becoming a fully committed Christian, determined to show others the truth: modern science doesn't contradict God at all but instead supports Christianity."

He does point out that the scientific method does not tie the origins of life to naturalism. So in that respect it is not fair to expect it to tie anything to God.
But he is a scientist and speaks of science and where it is at in finding answers for the origins of life, and the possible answers. In that respect he is not a false authority, but is an authority.
He does believe in evolution it seems but also says that evolution is not the origins of life anyway and that evolution can fit in with the Biblical Genesis.
He explains things in a simple way which means that even I can understand what he is on about.

You are incorrect. If he cannot make a proper argument for his claims he is a false authority. To be a proper authority he needs a scientific hypothesis with evidence at the very least.

 

[Valjean]

Commentary continued:

Garte asserts that the systems of DNA transcription, protein assembly, proofreading, &c are tremendously complex. He states the whole complex process must be in place for anything to work -- an irreducible complexity argument, and that the last universal common ancestor had the whole, complex sequences already in place. How he'd know this I have no idea.

He then states that the argument for God isn't in evolution, but in origins, ie: abiogenesis. We haven't yet explained it. He can't explain it, hence: God! He dismisses the best evidenced and most likely mechanism of "chemical evolution," as "very, very weak,(later: "it can't happen") and fills the gap with an even weaker and entirely unevidenced proposition: God. He argues that, because of the complexity of it all, purpose and a purposive designer are necessary to account for it -- which sounds like more personal incredulity. No rational reason why chemistry couldn't account for it is proffered. He proposes that the universe we see is exactly what would be expected in a purpose-built, grand design. This strikes me as an unwarranted fine-tuning or design argument.

Sy Garte may be a competent chemist, but he's not much of a logician.
He cites a Royal Society finding that 89% of biologists idenified as atheists. It makes one wonder how they all failed to realise his arguments for God.
@Brian2. Did not notice or consider Garte's a priori God premise, his confirmation bias, or arguments from complexity or incredulity?

 

[exchemist]

Reaction and ommentary on Garte's video:

He begins with an assertion of "obvious and universal" design. It's a major premise in his apology. He posts a chart with three possibilities: Natural selection without purpose -- which he rejects because he can't accept purposelessness; intelligent agency, which he contrasts with blind, random chance -- a strawman; and God, in which he goes back to asserting the "design" indicative of a divine agent in a sort of Kalam argument.
So: need for purpose -- unsupported. Blind, random chance as the atheist position: wrong. Need for a designer: non sequitur, based on his stated, a priori belief in a god ("indicative of a divine agent"), in this case. Even without the a priori belief, the Kalam argument is unsupported.
So he begins with a premise of intentional agency, which is what he's trying to demonstrate, making the whole argument circular.

He goes on to stress our lack of understanding of abiogenesis -- irrelevant, and state, without support, that "there is no biological mechanism can produce somebody who composed Beethoven's fifth symphony, it just doesn't make sense." This is an obvious argument from incredulity.
He goes on to speak of accurate inheritance of a beneficial trait "to all of its offspring" as a vital component of evolution, and asserts evolution can't occur without this universal inheritance. In fact, it's inaccurate inheritance that produces the variation natural selection depends on, plus useful traits don't have to be passed on with every offspring. Just some is sufficient. His assertion doesn't follow.

He expresses his astonishment at how accurate replication could be achieved in something so complicated as a cell -- more incredulity -- ignoring the millions of years natural selection had to perfect the process and eliminate most replication glitches. He says: "this incredibly high level of accuracy...couldn't have just occurred." -- flagrant incredulity!
He reiterates: "accurate self-replication is required for evolution." This is hogwash. Accurate replication would stop evolution. It would produce insufficient variation for evolution to work with. He asserts a circular reasoning fallacy -- which doesn't follow.
Next he quotes another biologist: "The genetic code is deciphered by a complex apparatus that interprets the nucleic acid sequence." Interprets is misleading. It implies understanding and intent. I don't see it. A polymerase just moves along an'unzipped' DNA fork that acts as a template. No interpretation needed.

He talks of "abstract symbolic information, and the impossibility of any natural process to create it. I'm not following the abstract symbolic information bit, or why he says it can't be produced naturally, ie: without magic. I don't feel like going back over it though, so I'll just have to wonder why biologists haven's picked up on this,

To be continued.

From what you say, this sounds like yet another instance of that old Dawkins classic, the "Argument from Personal Incredulity".

These creationists seem quite happy to carry on banging the same old drums, even though the fault in the argument was obvious decades ago. All they've done is find a new drummer.

At least I should be grateful, I suppose, that they have at last given up on the thermodynamic argument. That seems now to be the preserve of would-be Eastern mystics .

 

[Brian2]

It appears that he has let his religious views affect his work. As long as he keeps it under control that should not be a problem. But I seriously doubt if he has any evidence at all.

This would be classified as an appeal to false authority fallacy. Yes, he may be an authority on genetics, but if he cannot use the scientific method to tie it to God then it is an appeal to false authority. His rightful authority in genetics probably does not give him any authority when he tries to tie it to God. Again, I have not seen the video nor will I go blindly into a forty five minute video with almost no idea of what it is about. And I hate to say it, but the source looks dishonest. When someone makes a video like this there will be many comments, from all sides. But all of the comments are positive. That indicates that they erased the negatives ones. And it is a good chance that his work was refuted by some of the negative comments.

When I see clear signs of prejudice and bias I tend to ignore the sources.

Positive commentaries should be expected at an apologist conference, teaching session.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Positive commentaries should be expected at an apologist conference, teaching session.

What? I was talking about the comments on the video on YouTube. Those should run the gamut from positive to negative. When we can see only positive ones for a piece of claptrap we know that they have been deleting the ones that correct him.

 

[exchemist]

I did not see or hear "Creation Science Institute" anywhere.
Here is some information about the speaker.

"Dr. Sy Garte is a biochemist and has been a professor at New York University, University of Pittsburgh, and Rutgers University. He has authored over two hundred scientific publications and four previous books, and has served as division director at the National Institutes of Health. Sy is also the editor in chief of God and Nature magazine and vice president of the Washington, DC, chapter of the American Scientific Affiliation. He is a lay leader in the United Methodist Church."

I've now had a quick look on the web about Seymour Garte and indeed he seems to be cut above the run of the mill creationists of the type the Discovery Institute sponsors. He gets a mention from both Biologos and the Templeton Foundation, both of which are serious and not just creationist organisations.

I would actually be quite interested to understand what exactly he argues. But I'm not wasting 45 mins to sit through a tedious video. Do you have anything in writing from this guy that you can post? I can read that in 5 minutes - much more efficient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've now had a quick look on the web about Seymour Garte and indeed he seems to be cut above the run of the mill creationists of the type the Discovery Institute sponsors. He gets a mention from both Biologos and the Templeton Foundation, both of which are serious and not just creationist organisations.

I would actually be quite interested to understand what exactly he argues. But I'm not wasting 45 mins to sit through a tedious video. Do you have anything in writing from this guy that you can post? I can read that in 5 minutes - much more efficient.

If @Valjean 's synopsis is accurate it seems that like all other scientists that are also creationists, he may be able to do real work at times but when religion gets involved his ability to follow the scientific method and develop a scientific hypothesis and then test it disappears.

He has no hypothesis. Which means he has no evidence. He only repeats basic logical fallacies.

 

[Brian2]

Reaction and ommentary on Garte's video:

He begins with an assertion of "obvious and universal" design. It's a major premise in his apology. He posts a chart with three possibilities: Natural selection without purpose -- which he rejects because he can't accept purposelessness; intelligent agency, which he contrasts with blind, random chance -- a strawman; and God, in which he goes back to asserting the "design" indicative of a divine agent in a sort of Kalam argument.
So: need for purpose -- unsupported. Blind, random chance as the atheist position: wrong. Need for a designer: non sequitur, based on his stated, a priori belief in a god ("indicative of a divine agent"), in this case. Even without the a priori belief, the Kalam argument is unsupported.
So he begins with a premise of intentional agency, which is what he's trying to demonstrate, making the whole argument circular.

He begins with wondering why more biologists are atheists than other disciplines when there is what seems to be so much design in life etc and comes up with the answer that it is evolution which gives a rationale for all this design for atheists. He even shows a couple of atheists who agree with him about the idea that things look designed.
He gives a few possibilites for how things came to be as they are and makes a point about purposelessness in direction of the naturalist answer, because that is what he wanted to make a point of in this talk, in this apologist teaching lecture.
He does go on to try to say that purpose in biology would be a good thing and that purpose is shown to exist in nature,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but saying that the whole thing is circular because he states his beliefs at the start is ridiculous.

He goes on to stress our lack of understanding of abiogenesis -- irrelevant, and state, without support, that "there is no biological mechanism can produce somebody who composed Beethoven's fifth symphony, it just doesn't make sense." This is an obvious argument from incredulity.

He goes on to say that evolution is just a biological theory and has nothing to do with the existence of God or the origin of life and that this is not a radical idea. He also says that Darwin admitted that and that he had no idea of the origin of life and that we also do not know.
He says there are stories about consciousness, creativity, love etc human traits which evolution does not explain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and he should know that.

He goes on to speak of accurate inheritance of a beneficial trait "to all of its offspring" as a vital component of evolution, and asserts evolution can't occur without this universal inheritance. In fact, it's inaccurate inheritance that produces the variation natural selection depends on, plus useful traits don't have to be passed on with every offspring. Just some is sufficient. His assertion doesn't follow.

He expresses his astonishment at how accurate replication could be achieved in something so complicated as a cell -- more incredulity -- ignoring the millions of years natural selection had to perfect the process and eliminate most replication glitches. He says: "this incredibly high level of accuracy...couldn't have just occurred." -- flagrant incredulity!
He reiterates: "accurate self-replication is required for evolution." This is hogwash. Accurate replication would stop evolution. It would produce insufficient variation for evolution to work with. He asserts a circular reasoning fallacy -- which doesn't follow.

He says accurate self replication is important for evolution and that only living things do it. He states his incredulity of this high level of self replication having just happened. He states that accurate self replication is required for evolution, so evolution cannot be required to produce self replication. iow how did the accurate self replication evolve if it is needed for evolution. (and it is not just in the replication that evolution can happen, so how does accurate self replication,,,,,,,, as we have now,,,,,,, stop evolution, as you claim. Has evolution stopped because of accurate self replication? What is this circular reasoning fallacy you suggest is happening?
He is the Professor and so I presume he knows what he is talking about here.

Next he quotes another biologist: "The genetic code is deciphered by a complex apparatus that interprets the nucleic acid sequence." Interprets is misleading. It implies understanding and intent. I don't see it. A polymerase just moves along an'unzipped' DNA fork that acts as a template. No interpretation needed.

He talks of "abstract symbolic information, and the impossibility of any natural process to create it. I'm not following the abstract symbolic information bit, or why he says it can't be produced naturally, ie: without magic. I don't feel like going back over it though, so I'll just have to wonder why biologists haven's picked up on this,

He uses the same language that other biologists use when it comes to the Genetic coding and other biologists do say "interprets" "translated", "symbols", "language" etc So he wonders where the idea that the genetic code is not a code came from.
If anyone wants to go to this section of the video to explain more about what he means, it is from about 19 minutes to 22 minutes.
But he, as a professor, is pretty certain that there is interpretation involved and reading the code.

 

[exchemist]

If @Valjean 's synopsis is accurate it seems that like all other scientists that are also creationists, he may be able to do real work at times but when religion gets involved his ability to follow the scientific method and develop a scientific hypothesis and then test it disappears.

He has no hypothesis. Which means he has no evidence. He only repeats basic logical fallacies.

Yes but I suppose what I’m querying is whether @Valjean’s synopsis is fair. Generally, people taken seriously by Biologos are not just personal incredulity creationists.

 

[Brian2]

I've now had a quick look on the web about Seymour Garte and indeed he seems to be cut above the run of the mill creationists of the type the Discovery Institute sponsors. He gets a mention from both Biologos and the Templeton Foundation, both of which are serious and not just creationist organisations.

I would actually be quite interested to understand what exactly he argues. But I'm not wasting 45 mins to sit through a tedious video. Do you have anything in writing from this guy that you can post? I can read that in 5 minutes - much more efficient.

Maybe you can find something in this blog

Blog – Sy Garte

sygarte.com

or in this article

I was indoctrinated to despise Christians. Then I became one

How did two children raised as atheist communists in 1960s America, become Christians - thousands of miles apart - and rekindle their friendship decades later? Sy Garte shares his remarkable story

www.premierchristianity.com

or in his book
The Works of His Hands
or his twitter account

https://twitter.com/sygarte?lang=en

 

[Subduction Zone]

He begins with wondering why more biologists are atheists than other disciplines when there is what seems to be so much design in life etc and comes up with the answer that it is evolution which gives a rationale for all this design for atheists. He even shows a couple of atheists who agree with him about the idea that things look designed.
He gives a few possibilites for how things came to be as they are and makes a point about purposelessness in direction of the naturalist answer, because that is what he wanted to make a point of in this talk, in this apologist teaching lecture.
He does go on to try to say that purpose in biology would be a good thing and that purpose is shown to exist in nature,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but saying that the whole thing is circular because he states his beliefs at the start is ridiculous.



He goes on to say that evolution is just a biological theory and has nothing to do with the existence of God or the origin of life and that this is not a radical idea. He also says that Darwin admitted that and that he had no idea of the origin of life and that we also do not know.
He says there are stories about consciousness, creativity, love etc human traits which evolution does not explain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and he should know that.



He says accurate self replication is important for evolution and that only living things do it. He states his incredulity of this high level of self replication having just happened. He states that accurate self replication is required for evolution, so evolution cannot be required to produce self replication. iow how did the accurate self replication evolve if it is needed for evolution. (and it is not just in the replication that evolution can happen, so how does accurate self replication,,,,,,,, as we have now,,,,,,, stop evolution, as you claim. Has evolution stopped because of accurate self replication? What is this circular reasoning fallacy you suggest is happening?
He is the Professor and so I presume he knows what he is talking about here.



He uses the same language that other biologists use when it comes to the Genetic coding and other biologists do say "interprets" "translated", "symbols", "language" etc So he wonders where the idea that the genetic code is not a code came from.
If anyone wants to go to this section of the video to explain more about what he means, it is from about 19 minutes to 22 minutes.
But he, as a professor, is pretty certain that there is interpretation involved and reading the code.

It appears to him that there is design in life. He knows how science is done. Why doesn't he approach the problem properly? That is to properly define one's terminology. State one's explanation clearly. Next how go over how to test it. In other words what observations could possibly show it to be wrong. And lastly go over the results of his research.

Instead it sounds as if it was just 45 minutes of weak handwaving. That is not science. He only wasted people's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but I suppose what I’m querying is whether @Valjean’s synopsis is fair. Generally, people taken seriously by Biologos are not just personal incredulity creationists.

@Brian2 only seems to have confirmed this in his response to him.