Why cannot both Design and Descent be taught in science classes

[Meerkat_SK5]

@T_aquaticus

Wave-function collapse does not require a conscious choice. A photon hitting a stray particle of matter will collapse the wave function of the photon. No consciousness or choice is needed to collapse wave functions.

From the study referenced in the intro:

“No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether.”
[emphasis added]

@T_aquaticus

Empty assertion.

I made changes to last post. Look at bottom called “Appendix”

@Paul_King

And yet rather than address my points you engaged in a invidious comparison with the abduction of Native American children.

Why should I if you are not going to address the topic at hand first (unless you are conceding the topic). Besides, I can always create a new topic like that later.

@Paul_King

You have yet to explain why something that has no place in science lessons should be forced on schools against the wishes of pretty much everyone involved.

Because you have not proved it has no place in science yet.

@Paul_King

Evolution has earned it’s place in the science classroom. Evolution IS generally accepted mainstream science and even creationists would have trouble denying that. Neither creationism nor ID has met that criterion. Nor have your ideas.

That is not true. First off, the theory I present is technically not Fuz Rana’s, Winston’s, Roger Penrose’s or even mine but proposed first by Richard Owen. Instead, what I am presenting are models, which includes my origin of life model, that support Owen’s general theory of a Universal common design from a Universal common designer.

Secondly, this theory from Owen has not only stood the test of time ever since it was proposed, but it existed BEFORE the idea of Common descent was proposed. Now, it has also earned it’s place in science classrooms as I showed today.

@John_Harshman

I’m going to stop you right there. Your hypothesis is incoherent. It’s not even a hypothesis; it’s a syllogism, and the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.

@Meerkat_SK5

Consciousness: The creation of matter and energy (I.e. collaspe the wave-function).

That definition is itself incoherent.

@Meerkat_SK5

Why? Make sure species survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere [8]

As has been pointed out before, whenever you bring this up, most species do not survive; the overwhelming majority go extinct. God doesn’t seem very good at achieving his goal.

@Meerkat_SK5

(A) Family trees based on anatomical features will contradict family trees based on molecular similarities

Not a prediction of anything you have claimed.

@Meerkat_SK5

(C) Many more examples of Convergent evolution in Genes will be found

Not a prediction either. Nor is D.

@Meerkat_SK5

(E) Humans were uniquely and separately created

This isn’t a prediction either unless you can provide some kind of criterion for “kind”. And it’s been falsified by abundant evidence. You are an African ape. Get over it.

Incidentally, your leap from “conciousness is fundamental” to “Jesus is Lord” is good evidence that your theory is inherently religious and therefore cannot be taught in public schools.

I went back and made all these changes after your critiques here. Just go back and read the last post.

@Andrew_Christianson

ID theory should not be taught in classes. It can be taught, but we can teach that the Earth is flat, too. We shouldn’t teach that the Earth is flat, and we shouldn’t teach ID theory.

The ID theory that I described on this forum is virtually the same as mainstream evolution. The only two differneces is that there were at least 11 separate creation events instead of just one and top-down processes were involved in those separate creation events. That’s it!

The flat-earth theory is not only falsified but fundamentally different than the round earth theory and can’t be said to be an improvement of it.

@Andrew_Christianson

Because from this discussion, it seems like you want ID to be taught equally with the theory of evolution as a whole, or even have its own classes devoted to it.

As I suggested above, not quite. Instead, I want them to add quantum mechanical mechasims into the textbooks like they did before with other mechanisms of evolution in the past in order to give an honest take of reality to students rather than a dishonest one.

@Andrew_Christianson

Your hypothesis states that a designer is supported “because consciousness is fundamental,” so your null hypothesis needs to involve fundamental consciousness. Four of your eight observations (F through I) have to do with the theoretical common designer being perfect, so your null hypothesis should also involve that. Additionally, your null hypothesis does not mention Jesus Christ as the common designer, but your hypothesis does.

From that, there are at least three fail states for your hypothesis that you did not include in your null hypothesis: A) the designer is not Jesus Christ, B) The designer is not perfect as opposed to a general force, and C) consciousness is not fundamental.

You don’t provide any evidence to support or these claims, and as I mentioned earlier, the only evidence you do provide to reject your null has to do with the origin of life.

No, I already explained in the introduction on why I don’t have to do any of this. I will just copy and paste what said again…

Because the evidence in quantum physics is only compatible with a form of idealism, we don’t have to prove or assume some extra supernatural force/substance exists first in order to use God as a potential explanation for a natural phenomenon.

More importantly, we have good evidence that suggests God is a perfect human. This means that we don’t have to worry about using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a perfect being is immutable and cannot violate his own nature in comparison to imperfect beings, which can change and violate those principles.

In other words, the immutable trait this particular designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait this designer would also have to possess if true. This is what makes the difference on why we can treat an omni-potent God/Jesus the same way as other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens,etc.) when we want to use an intelligent cause to explain a phenomena over a mindless force. Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is supposed to be fundamental not classical physics.

So we can ask this question without being too presumptuous:

“Does all currently living organisms have a common design that can be traced back to a common designer?”

@Andrew_Christianson

A) You have not tried anywhere in your model to supply evidence to support that the theoretical designer is. Until you provide observations that show the theoretical designer in your model is the same person as the Jesus in biblical text, then you should consider your hypothesis as unsupported.

I agree. Confirming the prediction, I mentioned in my last post would provide evidence that this perfect common designer is Jesus.

@Andrew_Christianson

B) I would also argue that none of your evidences for a perfect common designer necessitate the designer to be perfect.

@Andrew_Christianson

Organisms that are optimal to their environment is a prediction of natural selection. Species do go extinct due to competition, because not every population is equally optimal at exploiting the ecological niche it exists in. Optimal is relative, and importantly, optimal does not equal perfect.

In his book Why Evolution is True , evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims that " Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we expect from evolution." (p. 81) He makes this prediction because “[n]ew parts evolve from old ones, and have to work well with the parts that have already evolved.”

From Wiki:

"The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises…

God’s immutability defines all God’s other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God’s knowledge: God is almighty/omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition." [Emphasis added]

@Andrew_Christianson

The question is not what philosophical ideal you hold to, it’s whether that philosophical ideal can be taught in science classes. You need to include evidence that quantum mechanics are immaterial and non-natural, before you reject your null.

I have done this already in the introduction. Just go back and read it. I also made a bunch of changes to my last post so make sure you go back and read that again as well.