What is creationism?

[prometheus11]

That would certainly parallel precisely, our enlightenment about the physical reality of the universe- what was once taught as the inevitable (and God refuting) result of simple, 'immutable', 'undeniable' laws, with lots of time and space to knock randomly around in, turned out to be very specifically guided by detailed underlying instructions, without which nothing would happen.

I can't grasp what you're hinting at. Do you mind unpacking those ideas a bit?

I'm bothered by your use of "random" (that's usually used derogatorily by creationists) and your insistence upon "specifically guided" and "detailed underlying instructions."

I don't see the connection to previous posts/sentiments.

 

[leibowde84]

Is it limited to the Christian religion's interpretation of God creating the world in 7 literal days? I believe in creation but my religion says that evolution was the mode of creation so I don't get how there is a "versus" there.

I think, in this context, you believe in Intelligent Design rather than creationism. "Creationism" usually refers to creation of kinds "as is" rather than evolution through natural selection and random mutation. Of course, The Theory of Evolution does not make any claims regarding the origin of life, though.

 

[leibowde84]

That would certainly parallel precisely, our enlightenment about the physical reality of the universe- what was once taught as the inevitable (and God refuting) result of simple, 'immutable', 'undeniable' laws, with lots of time and space to knock randomly around in, turned out to be very specifically guided by detailed underlying instructions, without which nothing would happen.

How do you get from Parsinomy's comment to "specifically guided by detailed underlying instructions"? I feel like you just jumped to that conclusion randomly, whereas Parsimony seems to have been describing a natural process not "guided" by anything but, rather, operating according to the laws of quantum mechanics that we have yet to grasp fully as a species.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I can't grasp what you're hinting at. Do you mind unpacking those ideas a bit?

I'm bothered by your use of "random" (that's usually used derogatorily by creationists) and your insistence upon "specifically guided" and "detailed underlying instructions."

I don't see the connection to previous posts/sentiments.

It's all down to whether everything we see, got here by design as opposed to chance, intelligent design v spontaneous naturalistic mechanism, guided v random, whatever terms you prefer.

Mutations are often described by evolutions as 'random' are they not? So I don't think that's a pejorative term.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you get from Parsinomy's comment to "specifically guided by detailed underlying instructions"? I feel like you just jumped to that conclusion randomly, whereas Parsimony seems to have been describing a natural process not "guided" by anything but, rather, operating according to the laws of quantum mechanics that we have yet to grasp fully as a species.

Right, a deeper layer of mechanisms, information, determining the outcome, not just the simple random mutation and natural selection

Exactly like the physics of the universe. We now know everything would collapse under the simple classical model, without more specific instructions encoded at a deeper level.

I think I agree with Parsimony, that life probably works in a similar way, and would similarly collapse under the simple classical model of evolution

The simplest explanation is always the most tempting, not necessarily the most likely.

 

[leibowde84]

Mutations are often described by evolutions as 'random' are they not? So I don't think that's a pejorative term.

The mutations are random, yes, but natural selection drives evolution. Thus, it is completely dishonest to falsely claim that the theory states that speciation is caused by random mutations. Random mutations are inescapable, as they would occur with or without any kind of speciation taking place. Natural selection along with the fact that cells do not replicate themselves perfectly and roughly 3.5 billion years of time and a drastically changing environment causes evolution to occur.

 

[leibowde84]

Right, a deeper layer of mechanisms, information, determining the outcome, not just the simple random mutation and natural selection

Exactly like the physics of the universe. We now know everything would collapse under the simple classical model, without more specific instructions encoded at a deeper level.

I think I agree with Parsimony, that life probably works in a similar way, and would similarly collapse under the simple classical model of evolution

The simplest explanation is always the most tempting, not necessarily the most likely.

But, modern evolution theory is very different than the classical model of evolution. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know of anyone who still claims that the classical model of evolution is perfect. It has been improved upon quite a bit. That's how science works.

 

[prometheus11]

It's all down to whether everything we see, got here by design as opposed to chance, intelligent design v spontaneous naturalistic mechanism, guided v random, whatever terms you prefer.

Mutations are often described by evolutions as 'random' are they not? So I don't think that's a pejorative term.

Mutations are random, but evolution is not. Most of the time when creationists use the term "random" they do it to mock a strawman version of evolution.

You quoted my post on quantum uncertainty and evolution, and I tried hard to find a way that your ideas connected to mine and I couldn't. So...why did you quote my post at all?

 

[prometheus11]

Exactly like the physics of the universe. We now know everything would collapse under the simple classical model, without more specific instructions encoded at a deeper level.
.

Explain?!?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The mutations are random, yes, but natural selection drives evolution. Thus, it is completely dishonest to falsely claim that the theory states that speciation is caused by random mutations. Random mutations are inescapable, as they would occur with or without any kind of speciation taking place. Natural selection along with the fact that cells do not replicate themselves perfectly and roughly 3.5 billion years of time and a drastically changing environment causes evolution to occur.

Mutations are random, but evolution is not. Most of the time when creationists use the term "random" they do it to mock a strawman version of evolution.

Right, so it all rests on supposedly 'random' mutations

, without beneficial random mutations- no new organ can develop, no speciation can occur, natural selection has nothing to select, no evolution can take place- is this not correct, according to the theory?

Natural selection goes without saying, it's the inevitable process by which the Ford Mustang outlived the Pinto to be reproduced and modified further. Obviously a significantly superior design will prevail over a significantly inferior one, and it is a misleading strawman to suggest that creation science disputes this.


The problematic part, is how you achieve a significant design improvement through a totally random corruption of the design plans, significant corruptions of function are vastly more likely if the changes were entirely random.


Prometheus, I will explain in more detail but must run for now, appreciate the thoughtful discussion

 

[prometheus11]

Right, so it all rests on supposedly 'random' mutations

No. Environment plays the larger role.

, without beneficial random mutations- no new organ can develop, no speciation can occur, natural selection has nothing to select, no evolution can take place- is this not correct, according to the theory?

Yes, but "benefit" can be different or "opposite" depending on the environment. Can you imagine an environment that would favor extene nearsightedness, such that we would call it "legally blind" in our environment? I can. Easily.

Natural selection goes without saying, it's the inevitable process by which the Ford Mustang outlived the Pinto to be reproduced and modified further. Obviously a significantly superior design will prevail over a significantly inferior one, and it is a misleading strawman to suggest that creation science disputes this.

Creation science is not science because there are no testable hypotheses, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

The problematic part, is how you achieve a significant design improvement through a totally random corruption of the design plans, significant corruptions of function are vastly more likely if the changes were entirely random.

That's because you don't understand much about evolutionary biology.

Prometheus, I will explain in more detail but must run for now, appreciate the thoughtful discussion

I'll be waiting.

 

[leibowde84]

The problematic part, is how you achieve a significant design improvement through a totally random corruption of the design plans, significant corruptions of function are vastly more likely if the changes were entirely random.

Most mutations are either neutral or detrimental, which makes sense as over 99% of species have gone extinct.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That seemed to be what Leibowde was saying, but if humans (and all other life?) was intentionally part of the specific design goal of evolution, that certainly ain't the 'blind watchmaker' process that Dawkins preaches and evolution is taught as is it?

It could in the sense that god may have just created the process from the start by encoding the instructions into DNA or something, and let it develop on its own over time (without subsequent intervention), knowing that eventually humans would emerge at some point. I don't think that belief is necessarily in conflict with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say anything either way about any god(s).

 

[leibowde84]

It could in the sense that god may have just created the process from the start and let it develop on its own over time (without subsequent intervention), knowing that eventually humans would emerge at some point. I don't think that belief is necessarily in conflict with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say anything either way about any god(s).

Agreed.

 

[leibowde84]

That seemed to be what Leibowde was saying, but if humans (and all other life?) was intentionally part of the specific design goal of evolution, that certainly ain't the 'blind watchmaker' process that Dawkins preaches and evolution is taught as is it?

I don't think it conflicts at all with what Dawkins "preaches" or how evolution is taught.

It could in the sense that god may have just created the process from the start and let it develop on its own over time (without subsequent intervention), knowing that eventually humans would emerge at some point. I don't think that belief is necessarily in conflict with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say anything either way about any god(s).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. Environment plays the larger role.

nothing in the theory plays a larger role than 'random' mutation, because absolutely nothing happens without it. Without 'random' mutations there is no mechanism for change for the environment to influence is there?

Yes, but "benefit" can be different or "opposite" depending on the environment. Can you imagine an environment that would favor extene nearsightedness, such that we would call it "legally blind" in our environment? I can. Easily.

mutations that would be deleterious to the individual's chance of survival and reproduction, are vastly more probably if they are random, whatever the environment. No way around that

Creation science is not science because there are no testable hypotheses, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

One theory predicted sudden appearances in the fossil record v a slow steady gradual process.
Which was validated?

That's because you don't understand much about evolutionary biology.

Enlighten me, how do you get millions of significant design improvements through complete random chance, creating a man from a single cell?

I'll be waiting.

Classical physics was once considered a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, yes? That given enough time and space, such apparent miracles like solar systems would naturally result from these simple laws. Many considered this as making God redundant, as it left no room for any 'mysterious unpredictable hidden forces' guiding the development of the universe.
I don't need to tell you they were wrong, turns out the development of the universe was guided by mysterious unpredictable hidden forces and according to very specific instructions at the quantum level, determining exactly how great fusion reactors would assemble themselves, factories producing arrays of more complex elements necessary for life. One can still argue that these instructions in turn were spontaneously generated by chance of course, but it's a tougher sell in terms of probability.

I don't think it is coincidence that Max Planck was a notable skeptic of atheism


No analogy is perfect, but there is a clear parallel to be drawn with classical evolution today

Similarly it takes the simplest superficial observation, and extrapolates it out to a unifying theory for all life, and hence similarly touted as 'undeniable' and God refuting by many. There is a reason the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called. People were similarly emotionally attached to the theory

The main difference here being, that classical physics was far more directly testable, observable, measureable, i.e. scientific than evolution, and held as unquestionable for far longer. And there is a far greater emotional, ideological component to evolution

Here's the part we agree on; that mutations likely are influenced at the quantum level- which makes it very difficult to ascertain that they truly are random and not following a set of specific blueprints just as the rest of reality is.


In short, I think both classical physics and classical evolution are intuitive, attractive, elegant, very satisfying as simple answers we seek to the big questions, but which fail for the same fundamental reason: Entropy. simple laws=simple results.

As above, all physical reality would collapse under simple classical laws to the simplest homogenous state that entropy decrees. Which is also what happens in modeling the simple laws of evolution. I think both require specific instructions determining specific results- and that would only be consistent with cosmological reality as we understand it, i.e. it shouldn't come as such a great surprise today as it was with physics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guy Threepwood has me on ignore, so this is entire for catharsis, but here we go...

nothing in the theory plays a larger role than 'random' mutation, because absolutely nothing happens without it.

False. Natural selection is just as important, as without natural selection not even mutations would cause any lasting difference. Focusing only on mutations and not on the equally important fact of natural selection is extremely dishonest.

Without 'random' mutations there is no mechanism for change for the environment to influence is there?

And without natural selection, those mutations would be irrelevant.

mutations that would be deleterious to the individual's chance of survival and reproduction, are vastly more probably if they are random, whatever the environment. No way around that

This is a flat-out lie. The vast majority of mutations are neutral and do not affect survival or reproduction, while a small number are either detrimental or beneficial. This is a basic fact of genetics.

One theory predicted sudden appearances in the fossil record v a slow steady gradual process.
Which was validated?

Creationism has never "predicted" anything as it has no model to make predictions with and almost any observation can be interpreted to fit it.

Enlighten me, how do you get millions of significant design improvements through complete random chance, creating a man from a single cell?

Natural selection. Keep up.

Classical physics was once considered a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, yes?

Not really, since it has since been "muted" to various degrees. Obviously it was never widely considered such, otherwise it would never have be amended in accordance with the facts - QED.

That given enough time and space, such apparent miracles like solar systems would naturally result from these simple laws. Many considered this as making God redundant, as it left no room for any 'mysterious unpredictable hidden forces' guiding the development of the universe.
I don't need to tell you they were wrong, turns out the development of the universe was guided by mysterious unpredictable hidden forces and according to very specific instructions at the quantum level, determining exactly how great fusion reactors would assemble themselves, factories producing arrays of more complex elements necessary for life. One can still argue that these instructions in turn were spontaneously generated by chance of course, but it's a tougher sell in terms of probability.

What are these instructions and where can we find them?

I don't think it is coincidence that Max Planck was a notable skeptic of atheism

It is, however, irrelevant.

No analogy is perfect, but there is a clear parallel to be drawn with classical evolution today

Similarly it takes the simplest superficial observation, and extrapolates it out to a unifying theory for all life, and hence similarly touted as 'undeniable' and God refuting by many. There is a reason the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called. People were similarly emotionally attached to the theory

Nobody considers evolution "God refuting". It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, regardless of what your insecurities lead you to believe.

The main difference here being, that classical physics was far more directly testable, observable, measureable, i.e. scientific than evolution, and held as unquestionable for far longer. And there is a far greater emotional, ideological component to evolution

Baseless nonsense from someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Evolution has been directly tested and observed countless times, and nobody considers it "unquestionable".

Here's the part we agree on; that mutations likely are influenced at the quantum level- which makes it very difficult to ascertain that they truly are random and not following a set of specific blueprints just as the rest of reality is.

Please demonstrate these "specific blueprints" exist.

In short, I think both classical physics and classical evolution are intuitive, attractive, elegant, very satisfying as simple answers we seek to the big questions, but which fail for the same fundamental reason: Entropy. simple laws=simple results.

Evolution is not simple. The fact that you clearly do not understand it despite having it explained to you countless times is solid evidence of that.

As above, all physical reality would collapse under simple classical laws to the simplest homogenous state that entropy decrees. Which is also what happens in modeling the simple laws of evolution. I think both require specific instructions determining specific results- and that would only be consistent with cosmological reality as we understand it, i.e. it shouldn't come as such a great surprise today as it was with physics.

Garbled, baseless nonsense.

 

[leibowde84]

Guy Threepwood has me on ignore, so this is entire for catharsis, but here we go...


False. Natural selection is just as important, as without natural selection not even mutations would cause any lasting difference. Focusing only on mutations and not on the equally important fact of natural selection is extremely dishonest.


And without natural selection, those mutations would be irrelevant.


This is a flat-out lie. The vast majority of mutations are neutral and do not affect survival or reproduction, while a small number are either detrimental or beneficial. This is a basic fact of genetics.


Creationism has never "predicted" anything as it has no model to make predictions with and almost any observation can be interpreted to fit it.


Natural selection. Keep up.


Not really, since it has since been "muted" to various degrees. Obviously it was never widely considered such, otherwise it would never have be amended in accordance with the facts - QED.


What are these instructions and where can we find them?


It is, however, irrelevant.


Nobody considers evolution "God refuting". It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, regardless of what your insecurities lead you to believe.


Baseless nonsense from someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Evolution has been directly tested and observed countless times, and nobody considers it "unquestionable".


Please demonstrate these "specific blueprints" exist.


Evolution is not simple. The fact that you clearly do not understand it despite having it explained to you countless times is solid evidence of that.


Garbled, baseless nonsense.

Great retort.

 

[prometheus11]

nothing in the theory plays a larger role than 'random' mutation, because absolutely nothing happens without it. Without 'random' mutations there is no mechanism for change for the environment to influence is there?

Without environment mutations are irrelevant. Why do you claim that one vital component is more important than other vital components? What's the most important component of fire? Oxygen, heat, or fuel? Or are they all equally necessary?

mutations that would be deleterious to the individual's chance of survival and reproduction, are vastly more probably if they are random, whatever the environment. No way around that

Who is trying to "get around it?!?"

One theory predicted sudden appearances in the fossil record v a slow steady gradual process.
Which was validated?

Evolution shows such jumps. Cambrian explosion, anyone?

Enlighten me, how do you get millions of significant design improvements through complete random chance, creating a man from a single cell?

Same answer as the last three times you asked. Environmental pressures. It's pretty simple.

Classical physics was once considered a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, yes? That given enough time and space, such apparent miracles like solar systems would naturally result from these simple laws. Many considered this as making God redundant, as it left no room for any 'mysterious unpredictable hidden forces' guiding the development of the universe.

You'll have to be more specific. Physics has competing theories and a few of them are more prevalent than others.

Physics makes no remarks about undetected things like gods or unicorns.

I don't need to tell you they were wrong, turns out the development of the universe was guided by mysterious unpredictable hidden forces and according to very specific instructions at the quantum level, determining exactly how great fusion reactors would assemble themselves, factories producing arrays of more complex elements necessary for life. One can still argue that these instructions in turn were spontaneously generated by chance of course, but it's a tougher sell in terms of probability.

There's no evidence of the universe being "guided" or that there are any "instructions."

I don't know what you're talking about "chance" for. Improbable I ties occur all the time. Every hand of cards you deal has a very small chance of being dealt, yet there it is...a function of numbers and probability.

I don't think it is coincidence that Max Planck was a notable skeptic of atheism

I don't think it's coincidence that he never proved the existence of any gods nor ever attempted to do so within a logical framework.

No analogy is perfect, but there is a clear parallel to be drawn with classical evolution today

Not accepted. You're simply viewing am the areas YOU find problematic due to not understanding evolution and misrepresenting them.

Similarly it takes the simplest superficial observation, and extrapolates it out to a unifying theory for all life, and hence similarly touted as 'undeniable' and God refuting by many. There is a reason the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called. People were similarly emotionally attached to the theory

Evolution doesn't have a single thing to do with God or God belief or God disbelief. Evolution is proven fact and one of the best scientific theories we have. Much more complete and understood than the theory of gravity.

The main difference here being, that classical physics was far more directly testable, observable, measureable, i.e. scientific than evolution, and held as unquestionable for far longer. And there is a far greater emotional, ideological component to evolution

Not at all. EVERY data point aligns with the facts of evolution. It's been proven. Emotions aren't part of the proof.

Here's the part we agree on; that mutations likely are influenced at the quantum level- which makes it very difficult to ascertain that they truly are random and not following a set of specific blueprints just as the rest of reality is.

You're misusing every term. Quantum interactions aren't "blueprints." You need to understand these concepts instead of just pretending they are what you claim they are.

In short, I think both classical physics and classical evolution are intuitive, attractive, elegant, very satisfying as simple answers we seek to the big questions, but which fail for the same fundamental reason: Entropy. simple laws=simple results.

No. You just wish that was the case. Learn more.

As above, all physical reality would collapse under simple classical laws to the simplest homogenous state that entropy decrees. Which is also what happens in modeling the simple laws of evolution. I think both require specific instructions determining specific results- and that would only be consistent with cosmological reality as we understand it, i.e. it shouldn't come as such a great surprise today as it was with physics.

Yes, "you think." But it's just your biased speculation. What else?

 

[viole]

It's all down to whether everything we see, got here by design as opposed to chance, intelligent design v spontaneous naturalistic mechanism, guided v random, whatever terms you prefer.

Mutations are often described by evolutions as 'random' are they not? So I don't think that's a pejorative term.

Let's cut through the chase, here.

Even if we assume that evolution never happened, do you guys see a logical problem with the idea:

1) transmission of genetic code, like all transmission of information, is not perfectly reliable (random part)
2) errors in the transmission can create different phenotypes (not random part)
3) a few of these new phenotypes can be fitter than their buddies (random part correlated with 1)
4) this fitness increases their odd to get old enough to reproduce (not random part)
5) the kids inherit the "error" and have the same advantage (not random part)
6) the ones with the advantage replace the ones without it (not random part)
7) loop 1) to 6)

So, what logical barriers do you see against this basic, "complexity" generating mechanism?

I am not interested in its actual instantiation on earth. Just on the basic algorithm.

What speaks against it? Please make it explicit which one of the seven steps/premises, or sequence thereof, cannot possibly happen.

Speak now or forever remain silent

Ciao

- viole