Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Spinoza was maybe the most esteemed albeit controversial philosopher who ever lived. Einstein is still at the top of the list as one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists and most influential scientist who has ever lived.As long as you use people’s names who are scientists to make your argument sound plausible, you’re going to have to back it up with with a reference. Otherwise, it’s woo woo.
And you have still not fulled the need for evidence. They are just opinion of two, and not supported by institutional science. and you have no reference they even said it.Spinoza was maybe the most esteemed albeit controversial philosopher who ever lived. Einstein is still at the top of the list as one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists and most influential scientist who has ever lived.
No educated person would need any reference beyond that. So I hope you had a good night and will have a great day today.
There is no need to be able to prove what one believes which may or may not be scientific. I did explain why both Spinoza and Einstein, using logic and reason, could embrace a concept of some kind of intelligence involved in the natural progression of evolution and how everything has evolved and why they saw it unlikely as all due to pure chance.And you have still not fulled the need for evidence. They are just opinion of two, and not supported by institutional science. and you have no reference they even said it.
That’s ONLY BECAUSE THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED A CONSENSUS ABOUT HIS CONJECTURES BY APPLYING THE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OVER TIME.Einstein's theory of relativity has held up under the test of time,
Well your opinion demonstrates that everybody isn't scientific minded. Do have a lovely day.That’s ONLY BECAUSE THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED A CONSENSUS ABOUT HIS CONJECTURES BY APPLYING THE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OVER TIME.
Creationism is not a science theory…ITS JUST AN OPINION OR CONJECTURE. Evolution IS a science theory. Einstein DID not develope the theory of relativity. It was a conjecture on his part. It becomes a theory ONLY after the scientific community develops a consensus.
Least if all, you. You’re not very science minded are you ? You seem confused. Without consensus, a proposed science theory is USELESS. Go ahead. Read more about Einstein….until his theories were validated, he wasn’t as revered as you now want to do.Well your opinion demonstrates that everybody isn't scientific minded. Do have a lovely day.
So is the silly idea that the Universe created itself, out of nothing.…ITS JUST AN OPINION OR CONJECTURE.
Read this….even today we are still validating Einstein. You talk like science theories are a done deal. They aren’t. That’s why they call them theories.Well your opinion demonstrates that everybody isn't scientific minded. Do have a lovely day.
You aren’t bright are you ? A conjecture is an opinion based upon incomplete information. It’s you who are silly.So is the silly idea that the Universe created itself, out of nothing.
Science is never right or wrong. It’s you who are wrong thinking it is.Perhaps "Science in the ass" will publish this brilliant ideas from a member of the species homo stupidus what have to do nothing with nothing. But who knows? Perhaps the science of stupid nothingness will be a big theme in the next century.
You never heard anything with substance about the real scientific theory of evolution, isn't it? You have not any lousy idea about what the theory of evolution really says and what it not says. But you "know" everyone else is wrong because an allknowing entity like you called "the science" is not able to be wrong.
But the reality in science is another one: Science is wrong on the upside. Science is not able to find out what's really true - but science is able to find out what's currently not wrong. And what's still not wrong is still true.
You’re a beauty. You can’t really post an entire statement can you. So you make up shit. Typical illiterate.So is the silly idea that the Universe created itself, out of nothing.
You’re a beauty. You can’t really post an entire statement can you. So you make up shit. Typical illiterate.
You believe in Trump, you know, the guy with 91 indictments who declared himself the second coming. And you’re sane ?So you believe in magic. Good for you. Typical for a Moon Bat.
And again your reading dysfunction makes it impossible for you to read and understand what the point is. Again have a lovely day.That’s ONLY BECAUSE THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED A CONSENSUS ABOUT HIS CONJECTURES BY APPLYING THE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OVER TIME.
Creationism is not a science theory…ITS JUST AN OPINION OR CONJECTURE. Evolution IS a science theory. Einstein DID not develope the theory of relativity. It was a conjecture on his part. It becomes a theory ONLY after the scientific community develops a consensus.
You believe in Trump, you know, the guy with 91 indictments who declared himself the second coming. And you’re sane ?
That’s ONLY BECAUSE THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED A CONSENSUS ABOUT HIS CONJECTURES BY APPLYING THE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OVER TIME.
Creationism is not a science theory…ITS JUST AN OPINION OR CONJECTURE. Evolution IS a science theory. Einstein DID not develope the theory of relativity. It was a conjecture on his part. It becomes a theory ONLY after the scientific community develops a consensus.
You've got the correct University for exposing the pathology: Biola. What we're surprised to see is the failure to include Freedom From Religion Foundation in the story, the same Biola story in the OP.Throwing temper tantrums and repeating nonsense, as Darwin's followers do constantly, is anti-scientific and unintelligent.
_____________________________________________
Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM
- johnjaeger
Hi John—
Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!
Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.
Best regards,
Doug Axe
Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University
______________________________________
Weasel program - Wikipedia
In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?
[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.
In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”
This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.
First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.
Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.
Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.
Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.
Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. (https://hotghostwriter.com/blogs/blog/novel-length-how-long-is-long-enough)
*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/)
The average word has 6.47 letters. (https://capitalizemytitle.com/character-count/100-characters/)
Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.
1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10-3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”
“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)
Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the -50 or less.
https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability
This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 82,800 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.
Therefore 1050 marbles, each 1cm in diameter, would occupy 82,800 spheres reaching from the center of the sun to Pluto, 5.906 billion kilometers from the sun. (10 to the 5 marbles/km)3 = 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic km x 4/3 pi (5.9706 km to center of sun) cubed is only 1/82,800th of 10 to the 50.]
Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:
We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
Dawkins continues:
The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.
[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (http://UncommonDescent.com) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.
Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humansa, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acidsc and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bondsd reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! ]
a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\
b - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/
c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480
d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480
The insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis forever doom the folly of Darwinian evolution.
Your problem with this universal intelligence argument is the spacing of time. So Einstein is one of the correct personae to study for this problematic.Part of the problem here is equating 'creationism' with 'intelligent design.' While creationism does incorporate intelligent design into the theology, intelligent design in itself does not need to include creationism.
Einstein for instance did not believe in a personal God with whom people had a relationship. But he believed in Spinoza's God or God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists. Einstein theorized that there is so much rational consistency in the universe that to think it all happened purely by chance/natural selection was simply not logical. He theorized there was some universal intelligence guiding the process.
The antinomy (contradiction of one law opposed to a second one). In the OP, ID seems to need to, is forced to, include theology.Part of the problem here is equating 'creationism' with 'intelligent design.' While creationism does incorporate intelligent design into the theology, intelligent design in itself does not need to include creationism.
Einstein for instance did not believe in a personal God with whom people had a relationship. But he believed in Spinoza's God or God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists. Einstein theorized that there is so much rational consistency in the universe that to think it all happened purely by chance/natural selection was simply not logical. He theorized there was some universal intelligence guiding the process.
No, it's not that hard. We will be doing that in this thread, for sure.Do you know the difference between organic and inorganic molecules ? It’s not the hard.
