Michael Behe's Original Definition: A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition: An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Interpreting Evidence
R. Josiah Magnuson has been invited to participate in a forum on Evolution. Here is a sample post.
"Thanks for mentioning the word "interpreted." All evidence can be (and is) interpreted differently, depending on what the fundamental axioms of those involved are.
Many Evolutionists will assert that they have no biases or presuppositions. Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.
The kind of science which puts men on the moon or sends nanobot machinery into cells is not the same as the "science" which attempts to explain where people originated or how the universe was birthed. Here-and-now-world science was not there to observe how life began and changed through time. So unless we one day build a time machine, we will forever build origins theories on pre-existing ideas.
If this is so, how can one who wants to know what the beginning was actually find out? Can we solve the origins debate?
In order to solve the origins debate, we must test the pre-existing ideas which we have against our here-and-now-world observations. This operation science can in fact do. When we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the Evolutionary presuppostion, we come up with one interpretation, and when we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the creationist presupposition, we come up with another interpretation. Whichever interpretation of the evidence works best, that is the correct interpretation.
My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain. The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.
Thanks for the discussion!
-RJM"
"Thanks for mentioning the word "interpreted." All evidence can be (and is) interpreted differently, depending on what the fundamental axioms of those involved are.
Many Evolutionists will assert that they have no biases or presuppositions. Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.
The kind of science which puts men on the moon or sends nanobot machinery into cells is not the same as the "science" which attempts to explain where people originated or how the universe was birthed. Here-and-now-world science was not there to observe how life began and changed through time. So unless we one day build a time machine, we will forever build origins theories on pre-existing ideas.
If this is so, how can one who wants to know what the beginning was actually find out? Can we solve the origins debate?
In order to solve the origins debate, we must test the pre-existing ideas which we have against our here-and-now-world observations. This operation science can in fact do. When we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the Evolutionary presuppostion, we come up with one interpretation, and when we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the creationist presupposition, we come up with another interpretation. Whichever interpretation of the evidence works best, that is the correct interpretation.
My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain. The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.
Thanks for the discussion!
-RJM"
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Merry Christmas
We rejoice at the fact that God's master plan of freedom and law will always triumph!
Jesus' birth, life, and death, though, show us clearly that it is often a hard road. The full realization of triumph only comes at the resurrection, after one has died.
Let us remember this day that when God's plan is our plan, we win.
Merry Christmas!
Jesus' birth, life, and death, though, show us clearly that it is often a hard road. The full realization of triumph only comes at the resurrection, after one has died.
Let us remember this day that when God's plan is our plan, we win.
Merry Christmas!
Fixed Laws and Evolution
Here is a list of scientific laws which go against the Evolutionary way of seeing things.
Quantum Mechanics: The "primordial singularity" containing all the matter and energy in the universe could not have turned into a Big Bang because it was a singularity and thus any hyper-dimensional expansion would have to have been "ticked off" by an alterior force
Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law points to a low-entropy beginning for the universe, but the Big Bang would have been an extremely high-entropy event
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Stars cannot form from clouds of dust and gas, let alone from outward-moving clouds of dust and gas
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Globular clusters of stars cannot organize themselves from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Galaxies cannot come forth from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Planets cannot come about from arbitrary arrangements of matter, let alone from a plane of colliding rock and gas
Laws of Chemistry: If oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, life would be eradicated by poisoning, but if oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by U-V rays
Laws of Chemistry: Virtually all the important chemicals in a living cell are long chain polymers, which means that if they originally had contact with water as Evolution says, they would have essentially melted back into simple amino acids and thus never formed into what they are today
Laws of Probability: Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly, so when the first Evolutionary proteins were formed, they would have had to have been created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids, which is impossible
Laws of Probability: Mutations are estimated to be harmful or neutral 99% of the time, and at least half the time a large mutation will kill the organism in which it occurs
Laws of Probability: The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and many other systems and constants in the universe are so fine-tuned that any variation in their nature and the universe would be practically one giant plasma ball
Information Theory: DNA is an irreducibly complex system of encrypting, transcribing, deciphering, and re-encoding, which means it had to have been fully developed before it was used by lifeforms, and this is impossible
Natural Selection: Complex systems are kept from forming on their own because if one part of the system formed without the rest, the organism in which it formed would have been killed off by Natural Selection
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Quantum Mechanics: The "primordial singularity" containing all the matter and energy in the universe could not have turned into a Big Bang because it was a singularity and thus any hyper-dimensional expansion would have to have been "ticked off" by an alterior force
Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law points to a low-entropy beginning for the universe, but the Big Bang would have been an extremely high-entropy event
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Stars cannot form from clouds of dust and gas, let alone from outward-moving clouds of dust and gas
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Globular clusters of stars cannot organize themselves from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Galaxies cannot come forth from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Planets cannot come about from arbitrary arrangements of matter, let alone from a plane of colliding rock and gas
Laws of Chemistry: If oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, life would be eradicated by poisoning, but if oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by U-V rays
Laws of Chemistry: Virtually all the important chemicals in a living cell are long chain polymers, which means that if they originally had contact with water as Evolution says, they would have essentially melted back into simple amino acids and thus never formed into what they are today
Laws of Probability: Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly, so when the first Evolutionary proteins were formed, they would have had to have been created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids, which is impossible
Laws of Probability: Mutations are estimated to be harmful or neutral 99% of the time, and at least half the time a large mutation will kill the organism in which it occurs
Laws of Probability: The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and many other systems and constants in the universe are so fine-tuned that any variation in their nature and the universe would be practically one giant plasma ball
Information Theory: DNA is an irreducibly complex system of encrypting, transcribing, deciphering, and re-encoding, which means it had to have been fully developed before it was used by lifeforms, and this is impossible
Natural Selection: Complex systems are kept from forming on their own because if one part of the system formed without the rest, the organism in which it formed would have been killed off by Natural Selection
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Living In A Bubble
Q: How has the Bible been disconnected?
A: The majority of Christians today look at the Bible as a book of religion only — a book about salvation, but not a book of history that connects to every area of reality.
Christianity, unlike many other religions, is based in real history. If the events of Jesus Christ’s birth, death and resurrection didn’t happen in real history, then how can we be saved? If all people aren’t descended from the real first man in history, Adam, then why are we all accountable for sin?
We need to read the Bible as a history book. When we do, we also find the Bible touches on geology, astronomy, biology and so on. This means we need to make sure that our children understand that the Bible connects to dinosaurs, rocks, trees, dirt, stars, people—in fact, everything.
Because of the influence of evolution and old ages, many Christians have relegated the Bible to just a book of religion—thus disconnecting it from the real world. That’s why so many Christians lack answers to the world’s false teachings.
Most of the church teaches biblical history as just a group of “Bible stories” disconnected from this history. But the majority of students from church homes attend government-run schools where they are taught a history (involving geology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.) that blatantly contradicts biblical history.
What is the consequence? See Living in a bubble.
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
A: The majority of Christians today look at the Bible as a book of religion only — a book about salvation, but not a book of history that connects to every area of reality.
Christianity, unlike many other religions, is based in real history. If the events of Jesus Christ’s birth, death and resurrection didn’t happen in real history, then how can we be saved? If all people aren’t descended from the real first man in history, Adam, then why are we all accountable for sin?
We need to read the Bible as a history book. When we do, we also find the Bible touches on geology, astronomy, biology and so on. This means we need to make sure that our children understand that the Bible connects to dinosaurs, rocks, trees, dirt, stars, people—in fact, everything.
Because of the influence of evolution and old ages, many Christians have relegated the Bible to just a book of religion—thus disconnecting it from the real world. That’s why so many Christians lack answers to the world’s false teachings.
Most of the church teaches biblical history as just a group of “Bible stories” disconnected from this history. But the majority of students from church homes attend government-run schools where they are taught a history (involving geology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.) that blatantly contradicts biblical history.
What is the consequence? See Living in a bubble.
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
The Science That Isn't: Astrobiology
The mission statement of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is "To explore the universe and search for life." The other name for this organization is... good ol' NASA.
Wait just a second. Isn't NASA concerned with rocket science and putting men on the moon and inventing new satellites and... ? What is NASA doing getting involved in tedious inspections of extraterrestrial intelligence?
The answer lies in the Evolutionary presuppositions of those involved. Science like that which NASA is supposed to be doing is by definition observable, testable, and repeatable. Of course, according to Biblical presuppositions, NASA may as well realize there can no aliens "out there" to observe or test on. But NASA believes that since life evolved on planet Earth, it must have evolved some other place in the universe. They will continue to have this presupposition despite all evidence to the contrary.
Interestingly, because of this idea that we are positively not special in the universe, Evolutionists have already invented a new branch of science from which to study the aliens which we will inevitably discover: "astrobiology."
As of yet, however, "astrobiology" is completely defunct in terms of aliens to test on. Even the United States Congress has recognized this fact. In 1994, during the temporary Conservative takeover, Congress de-funded SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Yet, astrobiology continues to amazingly flourish as a metaphysical philosophy in the name of science. NASA's new mission statement is only a by-product.
The fact that "astrobiology" exists is a demonstration of how Evolution's basic pseudo-scientific presupposition effects the way those who hold it percieve reality and logic.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Wait just a second. Isn't NASA concerned with rocket science and putting men on the moon and inventing new satellites and... ? What is NASA doing getting involved in tedious inspections of extraterrestrial intelligence?
The answer lies in the Evolutionary presuppositions of those involved. Science like that which NASA is supposed to be doing is by definition observable, testable, and repeatable. Of course, according to Biblical presuppositions, NASA may as well realize there can no aliens "out there" to observe or test on. But NASA believes that since life evolved on planet Earth, it must have evolved some other place in the universe. They will continue to have this presupposition despite all evidence to the contrary.
Interestingly, because of this idea that we are positively not special in the universe, Evolutionists have already invented a new branch of science from which to study the aliens which we will inevitably discover: "astrobiology."
As of yet, however, "astrobiology" is completely defunct in terms of aliens to test on. Even the United States Congress has recognized this fact. In 1994, during the temporary Conservative takeover, Congress de-funded SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Yet, astrobiology continues to amazingly flourish as a metaphysical philosophy in the name of science. NASA's new mission statement is only a by-product.
The fact that "astrobiology" exists is a demonstration of how Evolution's basic pseudo-scientific presupposition effects the way those who hold it percieve reality and logic.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
PiC American History
A wonderful book I have been reading lately is The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History published by Regnery Press. I highly recommend it. I have not seen a more powerful, better articulated case for Jeffersonian conservative philosophy anywhere I know of. My favorite place in the book is probably the chapter about how government interventionism and unconstitutionalism nearly killed off America during the Great Depression. I found it interesting that Herbert Hoover, although portrayed by most historians as a "do-nothing," was the one who FDR actually got most of his destructive ideas from. There are also a number of excellent arguments for state's rights and Christian libertarian values. You can get it for $19.95 by clicking here.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Oliver Cromwell: not a "bad guy" after all
Puritan Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of Great Britain from
1642 to 1659, is one of the more controversial figures in history. However, research suggests that whatever dictatorial powers he may have had were largely forced upon him. In fact, English government under Cromwell became more based on the rule of law than it had ever been in either medieval or modern times.
Recognized individual rights were immediately enforced. There was more freedom of religion than even with Queen Elizabeth, an Anglican who persecuted Catholics.
A blueprint was begun for a Parliament with authority derived solely from the people, as opposed to grants from monarchs. Unfortunately, these plans were never quite executed.
Freedom of trade became popular, and international commerce prospered.
Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of Great Britain possibly accomplished the first modern government under a written constitution other than that of Connecticut Colony.
On the whole, the Commonwealth republic seemingly consisted a great boon to the English tradition of free government and common law. Although objections to this idea exist, such as an alleged massacre of Irish Catholics by the English army, or the government censorship of certain publications opposed to their ideals, the fact remains that Cromwell was a hero in his day, and overall English freedom flourished.
1642 to 1659, is one of the more controversial figures in history. However, research suggests that whatever dictatorial powers he may have had were largely forced upon him. In fact, English government under Cromwell became more based on the rule of law than it had ever been in either medieval or modern times.
Recognized individual rights were immediately enforced. There was more freedom of religion than even with Queen Elizabeth, an Anglican who persecuted Catholics.
A blueprint was begun for a Parliament with authority derived solely from the people, as opposed to grants from monarchs. Unfortunately, these plans were never quite executed.
Freedom of trade became popular, and international commerce prospered.
Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of Great Britain possibly accomplished the first modern government under a written constitution other than that of Connecticut Colony.
On the whole, the Commonwealth republic seemingly consisted a great boon to the English tradition of free government and common law. Although objections to this idea exist, such as an alleged massacre of Irish Catholics by the English army, or the government censorship of certain publications opposed to their ideals, the fact remains that Cromwell was a hero in his day, and overall English freedom flourished.
Additions to "Science" Category
I have re-published a number of writings on Evolution which I had on the Chapman 08 ID Advisor site. You may view them by clicking here.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Little Chance of Conservative Republican Prez
According to Rasmussen Reports Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice are leading the field for the 2008 Republican nomination.
In a recent poll Giuliani received 24% of the total and Condi Rice beat out John McCain for second place with 18% compared to McCain's 17%.
Both Giuliani and Rice are pro-choice.
(Conservative President 2008)
In a recent poll Giuliani received 24% of the total and Condi Rice beat out John McCain for second place with 18% compared to McCain's 17%.
Both Giuliani and Rice are pro-choice.
(Conservative President 2008)
Thursday, November 09, 2006
"Intelligent Design" Is Not Enough
Q: Is recognizing design “enough”?
A: “Enough for what?” you might ask. The Intelligent Design Movement teaches that design in nature points to a designer, but it doesn’t say who the intelligent designer is, and it is compatible with millions of years and evolution. So is belief in intelligent design enough to be saved?
Intelligent design may seem very appealing at first because it brings up some good arguments against the idea that life arose by natural processes. But sadly, the ID movement has little or nothing to do with the Bible.Believing in design alone doesn’t tell us why there’s death and suffering in the world … or that we all need to be saved. It’s only through God’s Word that we can understand the bad news that Adam’s sin brought—death—and the good news that Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, brought—eternal life with Him.
While Romans 1 tells us that we can know there’s a God through His creation (and that’s an important first step), to understand who that God is and to know His nature and what life is all about, we need to believe and understand God’s Word.
Want to learn “the good, the bad, and the ugly” behind the Intelligent Design Movement? See The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the identity of the Creator really matter?
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
A: “Enough for what?” you might ask. The Intelligent Design Movement teaches that design in nature points to a designer, but it doesn’t say who the intelligent designer is, and it is compatible with millions of years and evolution. So is belief in intelligent design enough to be saved?
Intelligent design may seem very appealing at first because it brings up some good arguments against the idea that life arose by natural processes. But sadly, the ID movement has little or nothing to do with the Bible.Believing in design alone doesn’t tell us why there’s death and suffering in the world … or that we all need to be saved. It’s only through God’s Word that we can understand the bad news that Adam’s sin brought—death—and the good news that Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, brought—eternal life with Him.
While Romans 1 tells us that we can know there’s a God through His creation (and that’s an important first step), to understand who that God is and to know His nature and what life is all about, we need to believe and understand God’s Word.
Want to learn “the good, the bad, and the ugly” behind the Intelligent Design Movement? See The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the identity of the Creator really matter?
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Did you know...?
In 1982, the Congress of the United States proclaimed a "Year of the Bible." Its reason for doing so was stated in Public Law 97-280, 96: "The Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation.... The Holy Scriptures...inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States."It is unfortunate that the United States has come so far down the road of evolutionary "progress."
-R. Josiah Magnuson
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Friday, November 03, 2006
Politics As Usual?
"Politics," or the obsession with public policy or government for its own sake, is seen today by some as a grand operation for one to become involved in. Yet Christians are not instructed in the Bible to be involved in the world's political game. Nowhere does God's Word declare, "Thou, disciples of Christ, shalt contribute to politics and thereby hope to promote democracy (...etc.) around the world."
Believing that politics is Godly, many Christians have addicted themselves to the Republican Party and its goals. They justify this activity by stating that the Republican Party is less evil than the "other" alternative. But if the Republican Party is "less evil," doesn't that mean it is evil? How can a Christian promote evil? As an article in Liberty Forum magazine has asked, "On Judgement Day, when Jesus asks you, "Why did you vote for evil?" do you want your defense to be, "Well, Lord, I see where you're coming from; technically you're right, but you see, I was really voting for the lesser of two evils."
As Biblicists, we should not vote with political winners or losers in mind, but instead, vote solely for those who support our Biblicist principles. Patrick Henry once said, "Americans must select and prefer Christians as their rulers," meaning that those who do not believe in the Christian worldview and Biblicist absolutes will not be a good choice. However, when one thinks "politically," he votes for and supports leaders simply on the basis of who else there is to choose from. Politics in this sense can never be based on true values or conservatism.
"Politics," the relativistic approach to government, is not a Christian activity. Rather, Christians should seek to promote and vote for limited government under God's absolutes and Biblical liberty.
On November 7, let us refrain from "politics as usual," and instead elect those who endorse the rule of constitutional Law and our unalienable, absolute rights from our Creator. The Constitution Party website is a good place to look, and there are also plenty of local candidates from various groups who also display these characteristics.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Believing that politics is Godly, many Christians have addicted themselves to the Republican Party and its goals. They justify this activity by stating that the Republican Party is less evil than the "other" alternative. But if the Republican Party is "less evil," doesn't that mean it is evil? How can a Christian promote evil? As an article in Liberty Forum magazine has asked, "On Judgement Day, when Jesus asks you, "Why did you vote for evil?" do you want your defense to be, "Well, Lord, I see where you're coming from; technically you're right, but you see, I was really voting for the lesser of two evils."
As Biblicists, we should not vote with political winners or losers in mind, but instead, vote solely for those who support our Biblicist principles. Patrick Henry once said, "Americans must select and prefer Christians as their rulers," meaning that those who do not believe in the Christian worldview and Biblicist absolutes will not be a good choice. However, when one thinks "politically," he votes for and supports leaders simply on the basis of who else there is to choose from. Politics in this sense can never be based on true values or conservatism.
"Politics," the relativistic approach to government, is not a Christian activity. Rather, Christians should seek to promote and vote for limited government under God's absolutes and Biblical liberty.
On November 7, let us refrain from "politics as usual," and instead elect those who endorse the rule of constitutional Law and our unalienable, absolute rights from our Creator. The Constitution Party website is a good place to look, and there are also plenty of local candidates from various groups who also display these characteristics.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Reformation Day
We are happy to begin this site on the 489th anniversary of the nailing up of the 95 Theses by Martin Luther: October 31, 2006.
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
Why "Revolution?"
A revolution is seen by many today as a large-scale overwhelming revolt against conservative libertarian policies. What is a real revolution, and why is its name included in the name of this site?
A real revolution is a return to the old principles. It occurs when a society veers away from its heritage, only to return or "revolve." This term has been hijacked by Communists or socialists in the last century, and has begun to mean a fight for completely new ideas. A revolution does not mean an evolution. It means a turn-around.
Worldviews Revolution uses the word "revolution" in the same sense as the Founding Fathers did for theirs: a return to freedom and the rule of Law.
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
A real revolution is a return to the old principles. It occurs when a society veers away from its heritage, only to return or "revolve." This term has been hijacked by Communists or socialists in the last century, and has begun to mean a fight for completely new ideas. A revolution does not mean an evolution. It means a turn-around.
Worldviews Revolution uses the word "revolution" in the same sense as the Founding Fathers did for theirs: a return to freedom and the rule of Law.
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
In the Beginning
The beginning of all philosophy, government, time, space: God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1)
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)