Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909092446.O9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7AAE3F.2A01F48B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > 1) Are the theories predictive? > > > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > > is unpredictable. > > Mutation is by chance. Selection is not. You haven't justified the usage of the term "selection". There can be no selection at all unless you appeal to a theistic worldview. Selection implies intentionality, which is strictly "not allowed" by naturalistic presuppositions. > > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > to me. Please explain. > > It has one less premise. Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable to supernatural creation. > > Oh, and I didn't catch your answer as to how we have boys and girls. > > http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22sexual+reproduction%22+evolution&hc=0&hs=0 This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. > > > That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated > > > as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect > > > you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. > > > Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. > > > > Why do you think that Christians would necessarily want to incorporate > > it as a specifically *Christian* state? > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > about creationism? -chat is a "technical" mailing list? > > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > balancing Federal vs. States rights. Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. > > > > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > > > > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > > > > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > > > > attitudes and academic freedom? > > > > > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > > > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > > > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > > > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. > > > > Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make > > it so. > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > "evolution" theory. The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a contradiction. As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used to "prove" the existence of chance. > > And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution > > cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome > > this problem? Please explain. > > By not being defined the way you appear to think it is. 8-). > The primary mechanism of evolution is selection, not chance. So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. > Do you know how a "Monete Carlo Algorithm" works? It works > by generating random inputs, and then constraining the relation > between input and outputs to allowable processes, discarding > outputs which do not meet the selection criteria. See also > "clamping" in back-propagation neural networks. The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed into the system, which forces you into a theistic worldview. > > > This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict > > > non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The > > > place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your > > > children in non-state sponsored schools). > > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> > b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not > ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why is it so hard to admit that? > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > in useful ways. And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you afraid they might actually think for themselves? > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > predictive than "evolution" theory. Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > through His choice of natural laws. At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without moving into a theistic worldview. But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating about God? Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has created the universe? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909092446.O9219-100000>