Commenting on a random blog

We KNOW that muffins, jazz solos and the rest are all created by human hands (Mandy’s first attempts at muffins, and certainly my first jazz solos, were probably failures). There is no argument on tha…t point.

Yes there is an argument, Darwinian creation myths can be imagined to explain human minds and hands in terms of blind and ignorant processes as well as everything else. Evolutionists have made a principle out of explaining everything in terms of what seem to them to be blind, ignorant processes. This comes naturally to them. They pass their paradigm of ignorance off as the equivalent of “science” or knowledge and therefore all design is an illusion which reduces to blind, ignorant processes. Naturally, for how could it be otherwise? And if knowledge and intelligence have no impact on matter (That may as well be magic, after all.) then she did not create the muffins. Instead illusions like intelligence and design generally reduces to things like natural selection operating on the reproductive organs of ancient ape-like creatures.

Another example:
It’s like listening to a Muggsy deep and rich hollow body solo at Jazz Night through a warm retro amplifier. Without even seeing you play, I would recognize it was you by it’s tones, it’s similarities, it’s variations on theme…

Given modern creation myths this is another illusion. The interesting thing about modern creation myths is that pretty much anything can be imagined, naturally. In that case one might imagine that the music generally reduces to mating calls and the like.

It’s apposite that those who are abysmally ignorant with respect to bios/life seek to explain it and therefore explain themselves in terms of blind and ignorant processes. After all, shouldn’t ignorance and stupidity seek to explain itself in terms of ignorance? Yet it’s ironic that the same sort of imbeciles apparently have a fetish for science, i.e. knowledge. Perhaps they desire that which they lack the most.

At any rate, you said that you “KNOW” that muffins and all the rest are created based on knowledge or sentience, as if it is a given that the knowledge/observations/science typical to organisms is a reality. But isn’t it true that if knowledge simply must be explained in terms of blind and ignorant processes as proponents of Darwinian creation myths argue that science/knowledge itself is an illusion and ignorance reality?

Link: Natural Selection vs. Intelligent Design

Comments at Darwin's God

These are from way down in the comments section of this post.

Still no definition of CSI in biological organisms, no examples of how to calculate such claimed CSI in biological organisms.

I do not believe that the language of mathematics is necessary for people to understand the claim. Take the mouse trap example, it has a limited degree of complexity that has been specified toward an end. We already know that mouse traps come about as the result of the impact of knowledge on matter, yet Darwinists point out that they can use their creation myths in order to explain this fact away, naturally. And if they can explain something which we already know is designed away based on charlatanism then one can only wonder what other knowledge they may be explaining in terms of their abysmal ignorance.

Not that anyone expected you to actually provide them. IDCers have been avoiding defining their jello terms ever since day 1.

It’s humorous that any evolutionist would demand rigorous specification of a supposedly singular theory. After all, what trajectories of adaptation has the so-called “theory of evolution” been used to predict in groups of organisms? Where has the theory been rigorously specified in the language of mathematics as a force of nature that can be verified empirically? Since when have those with the Darwinian urge to merge had a problem with soft things like smoke, jello and so on? You often seem to have no problem wallowing around in the unfalsifiable hypothetical goo typical to evolutionary creation myths in the name of science, after all.

I have never claimed that ID is the epistemic equivalent of the most rigorous science, etc. Yet it is at least the equivalent of Darwinism. It is the charlatans who seem naturally drawn to Darwinism who often claim that their supposed “theory of evolution” (i.e. numerous hypotheses) is the epistemic equivalent of the theory of gravity, the fact that the earth is round, etc.

Who made God? The "Law of Causality"

In the podcast below, RC Sproul addresses first cause.  Atheists often use the infinite regress problem in an attempt to argue against God as the first cause.  Simply, they ask the question that children often ask, “Who made God?” Sproul presents an effective refutation of the infinite regress problem and discusses how the law of causality relates to the existence of God.

Law of Causality

More Complex than Previously Thought – Part XII – Cellular Movement

Research out of Brown University has found that cells move in ways that are much more complex than previously thought.  It’s yet another example of the complexity of life’s design that consistently surprises biologists.

“We’ve learned that cells move in much more complex ways than previously believed,” said Christian Franck, assistant professor in engineering at Brown and the co-lead author of the study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Now, we can start to really put numbers on how much cells push and pull on their environment and how much cells stick to tissues as they move around and interact.”

In the study, Franck and co-lead author Stacey Maskarinec, who both conducted the experiments while graduate students at the California Institute of Technology, placed cells on top of a 50-micron-thick water-based gel designed to mimic human tissue. They added into the gel spheres about a half-micron in diameter that lit up when jostled by the cells’ actions. By combining two techniques — laser scanning confocal microscopy and digital volume correlation — the scientists tracked the cells’ movement by quantifying exactly how the environment changed each time the cell moved. The team recorded results every 35 minutes over a 24-hour period.

What they found was cells move in intriguing ways. In one experiment, a cell is clearly shown operating in three dimensions by extending feelers into the gel, probing at depth, as if thrusting a leg downward in a pool. The Brown and Caltech scientists also found that as a cell moves, it engages in a host of push-pull actions: It redistributes its weight, it coils and elongates its body, and it varies the force with which it “grips,” or adheres, to a surface. Combined, the actions help the cell generate momentum and create a “rolling motion,” as Franck described it, that is more like walking than shuffling, as many scientists had previously characterized the movement.

“The motion itself is in three dimensions,” Franck said.

Brown University (2009, December 17). Cells move in mysterious ways, experiments reveal. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 17, 2009.

A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XXX

And because we know that you may be less than appropriately scared about global warming we do now turn to what we have discovered from history. We ask that you not be distracted by Climategate, and listen carefully to what we have to tell you about the past.

We did discover a fossil in Antarctica of an animal that lived 252 million years ago.1 It was during the time when Pangea was whole, and the volcanoes did emit high amounts of greenhouse gasses. This gasification of the Earth did produce catastrophic global warming resulting in the death of 80-95 percent of life in the oceans and on land (Praise Science).

So, we do imagine that this fossil is of an animal that had no fur and “probably laid eggs.” We imagine it on the line between reptiles and mammals. We did find some related fossils in Africa, and therefore pieced together that these animals migrated south and lived with other animals that were probably the ancestors of mammals.

The team’s findings, published in the journal Naturwissenschaften, may offer insights into potential survival techniques for modern day animals threatened by climate change .

“Countless species are threatened by global warming today,” said Frobisch. “A prime example of a threatened species is the polar bear, whose habitat becomes increasingly smaller as a result of melting sea ice in the Arctic Circle.”

“However,” he added, “it is questionable whether the polar bear or other threatened animals can respond in the same way as Kombuisia did in the Permian, simply because human activities severely limit the animals’ possibilities.”

He concluded: “The primary lesson we should learn from the studies of extinction due to climate change in the past is that it is of utmost importance today to control and reverse human induced global warming by taking counteractive measures, such as greatly reducinggreenhouse gas emissions.”

Anyway, the animals and fossils are irrelevant, because the point is, if we don’t act soon, we’ll all be dead in a couple hundred years (Praise Science). Please don’t give up on being terrified of the environment, because Mother Earth is very angry at what you are doing to her. She will punish and probably kill you if you don’t straighten up and curtail your gaseous emissions.

1) Ancient animals escaped warming in Antarctica

More Complex than Previously Thought – Part XI – Simple Bacteria?

Because of their rigid adherence to a failed framework, Darwinists have continuously been surprised at the sophistication of even the simplest organisms.  The researchers examined mycoplasma pneumoniae and found the following.

The inner workings of a supposedly simple bacterial cell have turned out to be much more sophisticated than expected.

An in-depth “blueprint” of an apparently minimalist species has revealed details that challenge preconceptions about how genes operate. It also brings closer the day when it may be possible to create artificial life.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae, which causes a form of pneumonia in people, has just 689 genes, compared with 25,000 in humans and 4000 or more in most other bacteria. Now a study of its inner workings has revealed that the bacterium has uncanny flexibility and sophistication, allowing it to react fast to changes in its diet and environment.

“There were a lot of surprises,” says Peer Bork, joint head of the structural and computational biology unit at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) in Heidelberg, Germany. “Although it’s a very tiny genome, it’s much more complicated than we thought.”

The biggest shock was that the organism gets by with just eight gene “switches”, or transcription factors, compared with more than 50 in other bacteria such as Escherichia coli. Transcription factors are generally thought of as the key components enabling living things to respond to environmental conditions by switching genes on and off.

Another unexpected discovery was that bacterial genes grouped together in clumps or families called “operons” don’t work as had been thought. The assumption was that if there are four genes in an operon they always work in unison, but the new analyses show that only one, or perhaps two, operate at any one time.

Even more surprising, the proteins the genes make don’t necessarily always couple with their nearest neighbours – again contrary to previous assumptions. Instead, they often join up with proteins originating from other, distant operons, vastly increasing the bacterium’s flexibility and versatility when faced with a changed environment.

(1). ‘Simple’ bacterium shows surprising complexity, NewScientist, 11/26/09.

The God Gene Redux

Darwinists of all stripes can hardly refrain from evolutionary storytelling when it comes to human psychology.  Not surprisingly, they focus largely on their opponents–those who have faith in God.  The recent work by archeologists Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery seems to follow the familiar template.1  Start with an actual study, then speculate wildly about how natural selection brought about the observed results.

During 15 years of excavation they have uncovered not some monumental temple but evidence of a critical transition in religious behavior. The record begins with a simple dancing floor, the arena for the communal religious dances held by hunter-gatherers in about 7,000 B.C. It moves to the ancestor-cult shrines that appeared after the beginning of corn-based agriculture around 1,500 B.C., and ends in A.D. 30 with the sophisticated, astronomically oriented temples of an early archaic state.

This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.

For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.

In case you missed it before, I think John Cleese’s work in this area is as good or better than any other Darwinist speculating in this area.