RSS

Reflektioner efter min första föreläsning om motsägelserna i evolutionsläran

04 Maj

Det blev aldrig någon debatt i Umeå Adventkyrka idag (se Debattmotståndare sökes!). Trots alla kritiska kommentarer på sidan för Facebook-evenemanget – där diskussionen ännu är i full gång – så fick jag inte ens en enda kritisk fråga efter föreläsningen. Det var ju skönt på ett sätt, men jag hade tyckt att det var intressantare och mer spännande med en debatt. 🙂 Det tyckte åhörarna också, så jag hoppas det är någon som kan ställa upp nästa gång. Det måste ju finnas någon i Umeå som är villig att försvara evolutionsläran.

Apropå nästa gång så beslutade vi idag att nästa föreläsning i Umeå Adventkyrka (på detta tema) blir lördagen 8 juni 14:00. Det blir då en uppföljare av dagens föreläsning med en lite annan vinkel. Jag kommer att berätta varför jag anser att Bibelns skildringar stämmer bättre med det vi kan undersöka vetenskapligt.

Några reflektioner efter föreläsningen

  • Det var mycket svårt att få tiden att räcka till. Det fanns så mycket jag ville säga – så mycket jag skulle vilja förklara mer utförligt så att alla förstod. Det är nog bättre att dela upp innehållet på fler föreläsningar än att försöka täcka in allt på en enda.
  • Det var också svårt att anpassa nivån så att både de med mindre förkunskaper (alla har ju inte läst natur på gymnasiet) och de med mer förkunskaper kunde få behållning av föreläsningen. Så är det ju i alla lektions- och föreläsningssammamhang; men jag tror att det särskilt gäller detta ämne, eftersom det sträcker sig genom så många områden (kosmologi, mekanik, kemi, molekylärbiologi, cellbiologi, geologi, atomfysik, etc). Jag tror att det bästa sättet att komma förbi det är att använda många illustrationer och liknelser.
  • En sak som jag insåg medan jag stod och räknade upp ”problemen” med Big Bang-teorin: Det är bättre att använda ordet ”motsägelser” (förutsatt att det man just talar om verkligen är en motsägelse). Om man säger att det är ”problem” med teorin så kan åhörarna få bilden av att det bara är fråga om luckor som kan fyllas igen med tiden.
  • Det var väldigt roligt att få föreläsa om detta, efter att ha ägnat så mycket tid åt att studera och skriva. Men det var lite jobbigt att bara tala om evolutionsläran. Man känner sig så negativ när man i över en timme bara pratar om problem – förlåt: motsägelser! 🙂 Det lär ju kännas mycket roligare och positivare att få berätta om vad jag själv tror på, så därför är det nog bättre att i samma föreläsning varva argumenten mot evolutionstro med argumenten för skapelsetro för varje område.

Ja, detta var som sagt min första riktiga föreläsning i den här frågan. Jag ser den som en lyckad övning i skarpt läge. Redan på fredag ska jag föreläsa igen, och den gången kommer det att filmas. Jag är tacksam för den här erfarenheten. Jag är också tacksam för all erfarenhet som jag har fått av mina kritiker här på bloggen. Tack! Utan ert engagemang vore mitt liv lite tråkigare och mindre lärorikt. 😀

Annonser
 

49 svar till “Reflektioner efter min första föreläsning om motsägelserna i evolutionsläran

  1. filipthe1

    5 maj, 2013 at 00:24

    Roligt att det kommer att filmas. I vilket sammanhang föreläser du då?

     
    • Johannes Axelsson

      5 maj, 2013 at 01:21

      Det blir under en Gemenskapshelg på Västeräng (adventisternas lägergård mellan Askersund och Motala). Det ser förresten ut som det fortfarande är öppet för anmälan.

       
      • Sake

        5 maj, 2013 at 07:07

        Johannes, om det är du som innehar rättigheterna får du gärna lägga ut på upptagningen nätet.

         
      • gissa vem

        5 maj, 2013 at 07:49

        Jag bjöd in alla humanister … Visst kan ni ta emot dem?

         
  2. Rebecka

    5 maj, 2013 at 07:55

    Vad kul Johannes! Jag bad för dig flera gånger. Jag är så glad för ditt arbete!

     
  3. Mike

    5 maj, 2013 at 09:14

    As I am sure you know, the creationist usually won the debates with evolutionists in the 70 and 80s and the evolutionists didn’t like it. They realised that they were actually helping the creationist cause. They are very nervous about debating creationists for this reason, so their best tactic is ridicule and mockery to reinforce the view that religious people are ignorant fools who deserve no right of reply. The general public don’t care much about it, but the mockery helps to keep them away from considering these important issues, and of course keeps them from wanting to hear the gospel message too.

    At least ridicule and mockery were useful for a few of decades, but it is clear now that it hasn’t had the desired effect either. Something stronger is needed! So now they wheel out the ”abuse” word and attempt to persuade everyone that religios people are abusers. The fact that the Catholic church has been caught abusing children play well into the atheist cause, but it is not only the catholic church which has been guilty, other denominations and individuals too.

    The atheists know the weakness of their arguments, and they know their’s is a ”faith” position because thay cannot know that God does not exist so they trust in faith that he doesn’t and feel that this faith is supported by evidence. But they don’t want it to be a faith position so they use words like ”probably” to make it harder to pin them down.

    The future will be a battleground about the abuse by ”religious” people, especially of their own children, and especially about teaching them about God as a special creator. For the atheist, not teaching evolution is the same as not teaching scientific truth and is therefore depriving the children of a good education and makes them less useful to do work and be positive contributors to society. For the atheist, religious teaching generates discrimination and intollerance based on nonsense. This theme plays out on British TV (BBC) and is part of the undermining of religious beleif and shifting the mass public away from mild irritation with Biblical Christians to a more determined opposition to them. Then it will be easier to change the laws and make it impossible for children to learn any alternative to the evolution based dogma.

    As the public was persuaded by the eugenics idea in Germany, USA and UK before WW2, and there was hardly a voice in opposition, so it is likely to be again.

     
    • Sake

      5 maj, 2013 at 22:58

      Dear Micael,
      what a load of unsubstantiated, biased, horse manure you manged to concoct there. On your leaving note – are you aware of certain christian denomination’s stands on Hitler in Das Dritten Reich? Shame on you for your blatent bigotry. Specks of sawdust and planks- Mate- Planks!

      Also, you are dead wrong about science and scientist’s standpoint on religious myths on creation.

      We are all for teaching them. But inclusively! meaning Nordic, hindu, islam, bahai, and all the others, in equal shares, given equal focus.

      Peg down your claims for martyrdom!

      OK?

       
      • Mike

        6 maj, 2013 at 17:29

        Dear Sake,

        I am not sure if you are just uninformed or really rather well informed but have adopted a indefencible position. From you ”horse” comments I suspect the former, but I do need some maure for my garden so it is a welcome reminder.

        Creation myths are abundant and many of them have similarities with the Genesis account. It can be an argument for or against Genesis. In any case the ”myths” are more reasonable that the big bang creation myth. Most myths at least have a cause, even if it is an obvious concoction. If you are ready to teach the big bang as the worst of the creation myths then I am all with you.

        On the point about Hitler and the third Reich etc, I am sure you know that Hitler was very manipulative and he used whoever he could so long as he could tolerate them., which usually wasn’t long. His intention was to destroy the church after the war and anything else left over with a hint of Jewishness, even those who were up to half german! But it is also true that most so called churches were very happy with the Eugenics program and not only in Germany. However those Bible believing christians who were a small minority in Germany were standing against Hitler and Eugenics, as did many Catholics and Lutherans. Many of these paid with their lives and apart from the 6million Jews there were 5million others in the death camps, many of them Christians (at least by name). Einstein himself acknowledged this – he said ”only the church has stood sqarely in the path of Hitler and stood up for intellectual and moral freedom”.

        Hitler was a Eugenist and Racist becasue he was a logical Darwinist. He saw the logic of the strong surviving by eliminating the weak and this gave him the justification and moral duty to do what he did. Hitler didn’t invent this, it was already there, but it inspired him and drove him. It has been judged that 275,000 psychiatric patients were executed by Hitlers regime, and not even by his command. In Hadmar alone the cremation of the 10,000th mental patient was celbrated with all the attendants, nurses and secrataries being given a bottle of beer!

        The Eugenists changed their name after the war and removed it from buildings and journals but the institutions are still there, and the ideology is still there, not just in neo-nazis.

        There is no desire for martyrdom amongst Christians. It is the joy of the Lord that drives and motivates us. You don’t seem to understand much, but if you can get past your not so well informed message, then it could be good to discuss things in more detail.

        I hope so.

        Best regards,

        Mike

         
        • Janolof

          6 maj, 2013 at 19:07

          ”…the strong surviving by eliminating the weak and this gave him the justification and moral duty to do what he did. Hitler didn’t invent this, it was already there, ”

          Yes, it was already there, but Darwin did not invent it either. It is called animal husbandry, or plant breeding, and has been practiced by man for thousands of years.

          What Darwin realised is that similar mechanisms also acts in nature. This does not give any moral justifikation, nor do any other naural process.

           
        • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

          6 maj, 2013 at 20:24

          Dearest Mike, welcome to the Newtonbloggen! Please, do not feel offended by the few detractors who flock to screech their petty insults at the sligthest provocation to their materialist world views. I think I speak for many readers of this blog when I say that we are overjoyed to see your posts. They kindle a flickering flame of hope in our frozen evolutionist hearts, that you may be a young-earth creationist who will renounce mud-slinging and mockery and champion the creationist cause based on rational discourse. Creationists of this breed are otherwise in very short supply on this blog, so you can imagine our excitement.

          As of yet, I fail to detect any rational arguments in support of the truth of creationism among your blog posts, but I remain hopeful. Surely, your opening salvos are just a teaser to awaken our interest, before the rational discourse will commence?

          Regards,

          Mattias

           
          • Mike

            7 maj, 2013 at 22:25

            Hi Mattias, and thanks for the welcome. It is good to learn something new every day and to get new experiences and this was one for me.

            I have blogged in a few places over the years, but more or less given up partly because of the mud slinging of the evolutionists. I have seen many dumb comments by creationists but never mud slinging. Actually the mud slinging is just a part of the problem on blogs, and is usually from those who are just upholding their world view with whatever knowledge they have. They like to be abusive and don’t like to hear anything or think about anything outside their limited paradigm. The real problem is between those who are quite intellectual, and know what they are talkig about but who dig deeper and deeper, ending with two people who battle it to a stalemate long after everyone else has quit. The climate debate blogs are the same, and no doubt many others too.

            The evolution world view by definition implies that life is nothing but chemicals mixed in a pot. Everything is accidental and without purpose or meaning. Everything that is alive is a mutant of something else. There are no absolutes and so the law of the jungle is the only law. Life has no intrinsic value.

            The creationist world view is that God is the author of everything, and He has the right to rule. The hand of God can be seen in design, and the provision for mankind, but it is all in a fallens state. Nevertheless, it hasn’t fallen so far that the God’s fingerprints cannot be seen. The inability of man to be able to keep the law (starting with Adam right up to today) is the reason Jesus came. He didn’t come to show us how to live, though he was a good example, and he didn’t come to judge us, though he coul, but He came as the promised sacrifice and atonement. As you see, the Christian message goes all the way back to Adam and if Adam is removed from the picture then the whole Christian message falls like a pack of cards.

            The theistic evolutionist views and progressive creationist views take it for granted that death entered the world before sin did, and this too invalidates the gospel so again it falls like a pack of cards. However, in their desire to preserve Christian culture and not be seen as antiscience, this compromise has been made and is accepted in most Christian churches in one form or another.

            Let us see if there is any point in commenting further..

            Best regards,

            Mike

             
            • Thomas Schwartz

              7 maj, 2013 at 23:06

              Mike

              Would it be possible to consider the option that death didnt enter before sin, but that sin entered a very long time before there was a man or woman to consider it?
              Would it further be possible to consider the option that someone can be a sincere christian while taking science (mainstream science) seriously, and that these christians do so because they find that both Christ and what we learned from science are truth?

               
              • Mike

                7 maj, 2013 at 23:33

                Hi Thomas,
                Some would say yes it is possible, but there are strong arguments against it. One of them is the term ”good” when God made it. I cannot agree with it but can respect it.

                Science and faith
                I could say yes, but I need a stronger word.
                Christians generally are very much in support of science. It is the abuse of science that is the problem. It was the happenings with Luther in Germany that really started the whole modern science process off based on the understanding that God is a logical and rational God. Most well know scientists up until the 20th century were believers in God and creation in some form. What was started for good has now been hijacked by naturalists, and naturalism is not science.

                Genuine Christians have many different views, and it is okay, but they can’t all be correct. We all have much to learn. Grace is one of the most important things to learn.

                 
                • Thomas Schwartz

                  8 maj, 2013 at 01:12

                  A point on your ”science and faith section”, the start of the whole modern science process wasnt a view of God as logical and rational come through Luther (this view of God was already in place), the start of modern science was the dethroning of Aristotle as infallible paradigm. This process began at the university of Paris. The church took part in the process when the bishop of Paris wrote a decree saying that Aristotle was not eligible for infallibility and that his science theories could therefore be wrong.

                  I agree that creation in some form was part of the worldview of european scientists in general up to recent times. However, this does not mean the modern YEC movement, which is barely 50-60 years old.

                   
                  • Mike

                    8 maj, 2013 at 20:53

                    This is a big subject and very interesting, but I won’t pursue it right now. The effect on Europe and the world of the reformation is well known.

                    Your point about YEC has been made before but is clearly incorrect. The modern YEC movement has its origin with the EPM more than 60 years ago in the UK, and some time later Henry Morris with the Genesis flood made a huge impact in the USA, but the early church had no concept of millions of years. The Hebrews had a very strong view of their geneology and of course could recite it. They believed Adam was real.

                    In the 19th Century the idea of deep time took hold but before that it was a few isolated greeks we know of who held out the possibility of deep time. It was never a Hebrew view and certainly not representative Christian until 19th Century.

                     
            • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

              8 maj, 2013 at 22:12

              Mike, please consider the following four statements carefully:

              1) Organisms that we observe today are the product of an evolutionary process of descent from a limited number of common ancestors (most likely a single ancestor) with extensive modification over very long time scales (millions or billions of years).

              2) Organisms that we observe today have descended with only minor modifications from a large number of organisms that were independently created in a single creative event approximately six thousand years ago.

              3) Darwinian evolutionary theory is the source of several unfortunate ideologies, including nazism and marxism, that have been a scourge on human civilization and made the 20th century one of the bloodiest period ever in human history.

              4) If life arose and diversified by means of an evolutionary process, it is entirely without meaning and purpose, and has no intrinsic value.

              Now, could you please give your opinion regarding whether the truth or falsehood of any of these statements has any bearing on whether evolution and/or creationism are true or false. If so, which one(s)?

               
              • Mike

                9 maj, 2013 at 16:40

                Hi Mattias,

                1) Organisms that we observe today are the product of an evolutionary process of descent from a limited number of common ancestors (most likely a single ancestor) with extensive modification over very long time scales (millions or billions of years).

                2) Organisms that we observe today have descended with only minor modifications from a large number of organisms that were independently created in a single creative event approximately six thousand years ago.

                3) Darwinian evolutionary theory is the source of several unfortunate ideologies, including nazism and marxism, that have been a scourge on human civilization and made the 20th century one of the bloodiest period ever in human history.

                4) If life arose and diversified by means of an evolutionary process, it is entirely without meaning and purpose, and has no intrinsic value.

                Now, could you please give your opinion regarding whether the truth or falsehood of any of these statements has any bearing on whether evolution and/or creationism are true or false. If so, which one(s)

                First of all, a statement or opinion has no bearing on whether something is true or not, but I can give an opinion about which statements I think represent what actually happened.

                Item 1 implies mutation and selection is an adequate force for increasing complexity and innovation. There is a vast ammount of evidence for mutation and selection, and even some benefits from it, but the benefits are usually the loss of something or the movement of something. I don’t accept it. In the real world it is degenerative.

                Item 2 implies everything would be 6000 years old or thereabouts, but this comes from the idea that there is no apparent time in anything. Adam of course was perhaps 20 or so when he was ceated and the trees were not saplings. I imagine the sea had salt in it, that mountains existed, etc. It wasn’t a flat boring landscape waiting for geological processes to kick in. Having said that, an actual age for the creation event would be between 6 and 10 thousand years in my opinion based on Genesis chronologies.

                Item 3 is too simplistic. Darwinism was not the only source of all these ideologies but in some cases it was an empowering force. The main source in my opinion is the sinfulness of man. I don’t know which century would have been the bloodiest.

                Item 4 ”if” is the key word. If this was true (and then there never was a real God) then any meaning is superficial. That does not mean that we cannot create our own meaning or cannot enjoy life etc, but everything is relative, and it is hard to say anything at all is morally right or wrong. Ethics is totally subjective and changes with time and convenience.

                I hope this explains my position.

                Best regards,

                Mike

                 
                • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

                  9 maj, 2013 at 21:52

                  Hello Mike,

                  My last post was unnecessarily convoluted, and I failed to communicate my main point, so I will simply answer my own question:

                  The answer I was fishing for was not primarily whether you agreed with either of the four statements, although your answers are definitely relevant for the conversation.

                  Rather, I wanted to point out that only statements 1 and 2 have any bearing on the question on whether evolution and/or creationism are true or false. Statements 3 and 4, on the other hand, are essentially irrelevant in this context. The priority in any rational conversation about this subject should thus primarily be to establish the truth or falsity of evolution and/or young earth creationism, don’t you agree? Yet, the main focus of your first posts has been on topics such as 3 and 4, and you have subsequently become stuck in conversations regarding these topics rather than focusing on what should be your main priority. And your conversation partners, who are first and foremost interested in discussions about statements 1 and 2, probably sense your approach as hostile and irrelevant to the main topic, and thus respond in the same fashion. In retrospect, are you surprised that your conversations often end up as mud-slinging contests?

                  I would like to discuss only evidence for and against either scenario. You may be primarily interested in discussing why the bible constitutes a convincing argument for your point of view, and I would be happy to participate in such a conversation. But I would like to uphold a parallel discusson (open for everybody) focusing on the bare, scientific, observable facts and how they should be interpreted, if that’s OK with you.

                  Regards

                  Mattias

                   
                  • Mike

                    11 maj, 2013 at 10:59

                    Hi Mattias,

                    I like your style, and am happy to discuss all things.

                    The mud slinging thing seems to be more of a concern for you than for me. If it comes then I can handle it, but I sincerly hope it doesn’t come from me. If it does please say so as it is not acceptable for it to come from me. Apologies in advance if anyone feels I am slinging mud. Usually this ”mud” comes from people who are incredulous that someone else has a different world view and communicating with them is too tough (I know how it feels). I have used examples from the climate debate because it is very similar, but the intollerance is mostly (not exclusively though) seen on the part of the doomsayers who are threatened by any arguments showing that there is not going to be a catastrophe (so ironice really).

                    From the comments I have seen so far here, only the first one was an immature silly comment, but even that was okay apart from the sill bit. The others are real comments seemingly from reasonable people who care about this subject. Passionate debate is good, and I welcome all the contributors who feel passionatley about it and want to discuss it.

                    You assesment of your questions is correct (with qualifications) in my view. As you look at the intelligent design arguments they are mostly supportive of common descent but not supportive of innovation through mutation – thus the intelligence requirement. In this view, there is an ”unknown” intelligence responsible for the design and information that is seen in nature.

                    Whilst I agree with their view in design and intelligence, and even in NOT trying to define who the designer is (unlike some creationist authors) I do not accept common descent even though the IDers say it is ”compelling”.

                    The only point here is that many who believe in a designer also accept common descent.

                    Your point 1 and 2 were about evidence of origins, points 3 and 4 were about consequences of believing point 1. However, points 1 and 2 do not exist in a purely rationalistic world, and indeed I would argue that both exist in religious worlds. The one is naturalism and the other is in Hebrew ancient writings which are believed to have come from God.

                    When a fossil is found, it is evidence for both belief systems. However, because of naturalistic assumptions about dating methods the naturalist is convinced it is old. Because the fossils show many examples of the same creatures we recognise to day, a creationist is convicned it is young.

                    The point here is that the science is not pure science, though is it pretended to be so. This pretence is driven by the desire to elliminate God, ”the divine finger” is not allowed, even if the evidence is in favour of it. If science is allowed to be real science then a debate is possible. If science is merley naturalistic magic dressed up a science then there is no point in debating anything. I personally believe in the power of God rather than magic.

                    You say ”The priority in any rational conversation about this subject should thus primarily be to establish the truth or falsity of evolution and/or young earth creationism, don’t you agree? ”

                    I think the first thing to establish in such coversation is the definition of evolution. Creationist accept Darwnism as a means of change in organisms – unnatural selection was known for thousands of year so natural selection is hardly any different.

                    Perhaps you can propose a rational definiton of the term evolution as you want to use it , and see if we can agree on it so that we can use it as a reference.

                    Best regards,

                    Mike

                     
                    • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

                      12 maj, 2013 at 09:08

                      OK Mike, here we go as a first attempt:

                      A simple definition of evolution is that organisms are the product of descent from common ancestors by means of splitting and gradual modification (or sometimes not…) of different lineages over time. The change between individual generations is usually expected to be imperceptibly small, but changes accumulate over many generations and result in major differences between lineages.

                      Note that this is a description of evolution as an observable process (both today and in the past, through different types of evidence). I would claim that the multiple lines of evidence that we have for this process make a very strong case for evolution as a scientific fact. We can thus note, based on this evidence, that evolution has taken place without speculating on the mechanism by which it is supposed to have occurred. Likewise: if any particular mechanism or combination of mechanisms are not sufficient to explain why evolution has happened, it does not negate the fact that evolution did occur – it just means that we have to find a better explanation for what caused it.

                      To this you may want to add different types of explanatory mechanisms to provide a causal explanation for how evolution happened. Two examples of explanatory mechanisms are different forms of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, and different versions of divine guidance.

                      Now Mike, I know that you do not accept large-scale evolution even as a matter-of-fact observation based on the evidence. I hope to be able to win you over to my side based on the evidence, but to do that we need to formulate our respective scenarios in a form that would be testable by means of scientific evidence. You have already evaluated some different possible scenarios, and I would ask you to give your version of events in some detail, while also giving some consideration to alternative potential scenarios. I have already written several posts here that may serve as guidelines, if you just google translate them. I am trying to save my own time by not having to write these chunks of text again. I sincerely hope that there will be no confusions based on the translations.
                      https://newtonbloggen.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/hastigt-begravda-djur/#comment-2141
                      https://newtonbloggen.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/vad-ar-det-evolutionsbiologer-standigt-maste-paminna-sig-om/#comment-9777

                      Here is also a site in English that takes a systematic approach to differentiate clearly between alternative possible scenarios, so that we can more easily distinguish the main points by which they differ:
                      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/evolution.htm#i

                      Regards

                      Mattias

                       
                    • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

                      18 maj, 2013 at 20:53

                      Mike..?… are you still with us, buddy?

                       
                    • Mike

                      19 maj, 2013 at 17:07

                      Yes, back now. Life is busy!

                      I saw your post earlier with a ”definition” but I don’t think it helps much.

                      In the ID/Creation world there is no natural process capable of generating information. Of course it is possible to rearrange, copy, cut and paste information, etc., but this is a degenerative process. The complexity of the information reduces.

                      Perhaps you could try to show an example of increasing complexity of information arising from random processes.

                       
                    • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

                      20 maj, 2013 at 00:09

                      Mike, did you understand the distinction I made in my previous post?:
                      1) evolution as an observable process, something we can show by means of evidence to have occurred.
                      2) The causal mechanisms behind evolution, which is something else.

                      We need to determine whether evolution has happened, and describe the historical process, before we can speculate about possible mechanisms. Otherwise you are trying to put the cart in front of the horse. Standard procedure is to re-construct the scene of a crime, and determine what has likely happened, before you go out to find a potential suspect.

                      Now I would make the case for evolution before discussing potential mechanisms. If it makes you happy, we can provisionally assume that God simply directed the process. In fact, if you just took an ID approach and accepted evolution but put God in the picture, I would be perfectly happy not challenging you on that. It is some of the claims about actual events in Earth’s history that I take issue with.

                      We also need to compare the claims about an evolutionary history on the same epistemological level as any alternative claims that you have. Therefore I must ask you again: Could you please formulate a scenario that you want to put forth, stating specifically (in your opinion) how major events in the history of the universe have unfolded from the beginning of the universe until today? Thanks in advance// Mattias

                       
                    • Mattias "ödmjukhet" Larsson

                      8 juni, 2013 at 09:39

                      Mike it seems like you have left the conversation. How cruel of you to promise to satisfy our desperate need for rational conversation, only to snatch it away after throwing us a few tidbits that only serve to further whet our ravenous appetite. Shame on you, sir!

                       
        • Sake

          7 maj, 2013 at 05:45

          Michael,
          I may not seem to understand much, by your account. This is fine. I am not saying I agree, but I am comfortable with your value judgement.

          You probably will take this as further proof of your opinion – so be it – but I do not agree with your analysis. First, just as there may be world creation myths which look similar to genesis (i.e. the jewish and christian), most are not. Unless you consider any element of creation within a myth to constitute similarity to genesis. Islam, hindu, buddhist myths are quite different to genesis – to name only a few of the larger religions. The nordic, roman and greek myths, to name a few non-practiced religions are no more similar to genesis than the islam, hindu, buddhist ones. Your claim is simply not true.
          As you probably are aware of, there are not even shreds of evidence for evolutionary biologists having turned out for Hitler in any numbers at all. Hitler himself was not an evolutionary biologist either. These are all well known facts. To make mud slinging an option, you implicitly invent the notion of Darwinian morals, which you claim Hitler lived by. This is a dishonest way of arguing, only aiming at placing guilt by association, and a false one at that. In fact, I don’t care too much for debating Hitler at all. The less his name is used as a weapon in arguments today, the better. Unless you really want to discuss the atrocities he was responsible for.
          I put it to you that martyrdom is held high within Christian ranks. Is it not a fact that Jesus Christ died for the sins of humans, nailed to a cross? and that this act is a (the?) central pillar within christian worship? Also, many of the saints, as they are described, suffered martyr deaths. Hence, martyrdom is held out as an ideal within christianity. Debaters on this forum also frequently place themselves and their christian religion in that corner – like you did in your previous post, where you played the ”we are so persecuted” card.

          My advice to you is – do by all means argue your case and try to win sympathy for it using arguments positive for your view of the world. Stop trying to score easy points by laying negative arguments in the laps of your opponents, especially if the arguments are false.

           
          • Mike

            7 maj, 2013 at 23:10

            Sake,
            Christians have not sought martrydom. It is not like Islam.

            Don’t get hung up on myths. Yggdrasil was a tree in the centre of a garden. Islam has a creation story where God is the author, and there are similarities for obvious reasons. Wordlwide myths also include the rescue of a group of people from a flood, from the American indians to some isolated Chinese villages. It is there if you want to see it but it is not important.

            Jesus was the promised lamb. Sacrificed on the Jewish Passover. The instigation of the feast, as with all the Hebrew feasts, was prophetic, and fulfilled by Christ. Perhaps you understand some of this okay, but you seem confused about martrydom. Christ made the great exchange, he took our sin on himself so that we could take his righteousness – we don’t earn it or deserve it in any way and we can’t add anything to it, but we can rejoice in it!
            I realise that christianity has been used for all the wrong reasons through history and I can’t do anything about it, but the Biblical christian faith is very clear.

            Nazism –
            ”The business of the corporate state was eugenics or artificial selecion – politics as applied biology” George Stein ”Biological Science and the roots of Nazism” – American Scientist 1988.
            (Just one example from a huge number of sources)

            That Fascim is rooted in Darwinism is hardly disputed. I have no idea why you reject this. Nazism was a special case where the Germans saw themselves as the highest evolved, and they needed more ”living space”. The less evolved were doomed to pass away, and helping to get rid of them was a good thing in their eyes. Negros, Chinese, Poles, Jews, Eastern Europeans generally, and many more. Even Germans (as I said before) who were not fit – they were called the ”eaters” because they were a burden on society, and they were eliminated. Social Darwinism was a great asset to a racist, and has been so for totalitarianism.

            There is so much on this subject, I can see that you have not even started to look at it. When you do, you need to see the roots of Marxism too.

            Best regards,

            Mike

             
            • Sake

              19 maj, 2013 at 11:53

              MIchael,
              de kristna kyrkorna hyllar martyrdom. Det är allmänt accepterat. Dyrkan av hur kyrkans centralgestalt dog på korset, enligt uppgift trots att han kunde ha valt att undgå detta öde, är bevis nog (sedan har vi all helgondyrkan, de flesta av dem kanoniserade primärt för martyrdom). Jag förstår inte meningen med att förneka detta.

              Vad gäller skapelsemyter så kan man som du och de dina läsa dem som ni läser biblen, dvs med selektiva filter för ögonen. Då går det alldeles utmärkta att hitta ett korn här och där som på någon enstaka punkt vardera stämmer överens med den som du menar är den Sanna skapelseberättelsen. Men, om man tar in samtliga skapelseberättelse, ser man att de bildar ett sammelsurium av detaljer, som saknar varje form av röd tråd av detaljer inom dem.
              Tänk efter lite – om samtliga kulturer härstammar från en grupp som vandrade av en påstådd ark efter en världsomfattande översvämning, vore inte den förväntade bilden att denna översvämning skulle finnas med i samtliga folkslags skapelseberättelser? eller åtminstone de flesta? Det
              du presenterar angående myternas samstämmighet grundar sig i en process som på amerikansk engelska kallas för cherry picking.

              Dina undringar om varför jag värjer mig mot dina Darwinism = Nazism påståenden (som du delar med fler av dina gelikar – jag har haft flera animerade diskussioner med t.ex. Johannes om detta) skall jag ge ett svar på. Jag börjar med att deklarera att NSDAP under 30-, och 40-talen använde bl.a. Darwinistiska referenser i sin retorik samt Mendelsk genetiska mekanismer i praktiska försök att renodla ett ariskt och därmed överlägset, enligt retoriken, folk. Dock, så var både retoriken och avelsprogrammen helt förkastliga, inta bara från en moralisk vinkel, utan även ur vetenskaplig för att 1) människan består inte av raser på det sätt som Nazisterna menade, 2) de antagande om ärftlighet av egenskaper som deras eugeniprogram baserade sig på (människoaveln såväl som dödslägren) är helt enkelt fel, eller som minst, lång förbi rimlighet och relevans gjorda simplifieringar.

              Jag påstår nu helt frankt, som jag även presenterat för Johannes i liknande diskussioner, att ingen av er är primärt intresserade av centralfrågan om nazismens illgärningar. För då hade det t.ex. varit intressant för er att diskutera varför människor med en uttalad kristen livssyn lånade sig till att acceptera nazisternas styre, med alla de hemskheter som följde med detta. Istället använder ni nazismens hemskheter för att lansera något som aldrig funnits – en (dålig) moral baserad på Darwinistiska principer. Syftet med detta är glasklart en ”guilt-by-association”-förhoppning, när ni kontrasterar denna halmgubbe mot er egna, enligt egen uppgift – högre – moral, baserat på en from gudstro med vidhängande moraliska regelverk.
              Förutom att hela uppställningen är en guilt by association halmgubbe, missar du ju det absolut centrala i NSDAPs budskap. Det att den germanska (ariska) rasen påstods var överlägsen de andra, helt utan några evolutionsbiologiska argument. Det var liksom själva utgångspunkten. NSDAPs retorik och eugeniprogram kom till utifrån ett redan existerande tänk, inte tvärt om.

              Men det som jag verkligen vänder mig emot i ditt och Johannes påståenden om Nazism = Darwinism, är att ni för billiga retoriska kneps skull rider ryggsäck på alla de offer som utsattes för Nazisternas hemskheter – judar, zigenare, bögar, slaver, och många fler grupper och individer. Vet du om de skulle ha delat din (och Johannes) analys om att de blev utsatta för en Darwinistisk, farlig och omänsklig moral? och att de därmed ställer upp på att användas som retoriska slagträn för din sak i den här debatten? Jag säger inte att jag vet – men jag påstår att du med ditt lättvindiga påstående om att de föll offer för en Darwinistisk baserad (a)moral genom att relativisera förringar och förminskar de hemskheter som de genomled.

              Detta stör mig något vansinnigt, och är moraliskt totalt fel, om du frågar mig.

              Nu, när din (och Johannes) bluff är synad, så fungerar inte Darwinism = Nazism-analogin längre. Så lägg ned den så är du snäll. Som jag ser det spiller du endast ägg på din egen haka om du framhärdar.

              Slutligen erkänner jag att mitt svar på ditt första inlägg var raljant. Detta baserades i sin tur på att jag fann ditt inlägg otroligt pompöst och fritt från verklighetskontakt och jag ville med mitt inlägg provocera en del. Med detta sagt, vill jag även säga att jag anser att du har mer framgång för din sak om du adresserade sakfrågorna i stället för att endast kalla mina argument för silly – för sakfrågorna finns där, bevisat av diskussionen som följt efterpå.

              vänligen
              sake

               
        • kris08

          7 maj, 2013 at 11:21

          Perhaps you are better informed than Einstein himself:
          ”I am, however, a little embarrassed. The wording of the statement you have quoted is not my own. Shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany I had an oral conversation with a newspaper man about these matters. Since then my remarks have been elaborated and exaggerated nearly beyond recognition”
          I must be very poorly informed as I had no idea that persecution of Jews, homosexuals and handicapped people was a completely new idea, without Christian or biblical support…

           
          • ljohank

            7 maj, 2013 at 11:37

             
          • Mike

            7 maj, 2013 at 22:33

            The exact wording of Einstein’s response when questioned about the quote, as it appears in his letter:
            ”It’s true that I made a statement which corresponds approximately with the text you quoted. I made this statement during the first years of the Nazi regime– much earlier than 1940– and my expressions were a little more moderate.”

            Check your facts.

             
            • kris08

              7 maj, 2013 at 23:01

              There is in fact at least a third version:

              ”In the letter to Count Montgelas, Einstein explained that the original comment was a casual one made to a journalist regarding the support of ”a few churchmen” for individual rights and intellectual freedom during the early rule of Hitler and that, according to Einstein, the comment had been drastically exaggerated.”

              The common facts are that it was a comment about some individuals of the church long before the war and death camps. Your use of the quote was in any case completely misleading!

              By the way, is the idea that persecution of Jews was a darwinist idea also a fact?

               
              • Mike

                7 maj, 2013 at 23:24

                The quote I gave you exists in an authenticated letter from Einstein himself, possibly before the war as you say. I realsie that people don’t really want it to be true and so try to find ways to discredit it but it won’t wash.

                Nazis were (and still are) racist. The ”Jewish problem” was not confined to Germany, so when Germany decided slowly to solve the problem, (long before the ”final solution”) other nations were not so troubled. This was not anything to do with Darwinism directly, it would have been there anyway as in times long before such as during the crusades when many Jews were killed in Germany. However, Darwinism, and especially social Darwinism provided a justification for it as it did for many of the horrors of WW2 and the time between the wars when eugenics took hold.

                 
                • Thomas Schwartz

                  8 maj, 2013 at 01:01

                  Unfortunately, history has ample evidence that pogroms have had no need of justification..

                   
                  • Mike

                    9 maj, 2013 at 16:15

                    Hi Thomas,
                    This is a good comment. I am sure everyone on this blog agrees with you including me, but the point is not about whether it was justified as we see it but how the Nazis saw it. They did it for a reason, and the reason is not hard to find. There was a logic in what they did and it was based on themselves being a master race who needed to isolate the lower races and stop the breeding. To put a halt to the spread of inferior genes. You can look up ”racial hygene” if you want.

                    In addition, in 1938 the Gestapo put more than 10,000 vagrants and beggars in concentration camps. Not only these but unemployed, alcoholics, prostitues and habitual criminals because they were ”asocial” and these traits were believed to be hereditary.

                    Mike

                     
                • kris08

                  8 maj, 2013 at 11:12

                  ”I realsie that people don’t really want it to be true and so try to find ways to discredit”

                  So even Einstein himself has no right to explain his alleged quote and avoid misuse (like yours)?

                  ”However, Darwinism, and especially social Darwinism provided a justification for it”

                  Yes, there was a certain misuse of science but the Bible and Christian tradition justified the persecution of especially Jews but also homosexuals and handicapped people.
                  The graphic symbol, the fanatism, the blind belief, the mass gatherings, the idea of a chosen people, all belong to the religious sphere!

                   
                  • Mike

                    8 maj, 2013 at 20:43

                    ”So even Einstein himself has no right to explain his alleged quote and avoid misuse (like yours)?”

                    Due to the supposed confusion over what he said, he was asked to confirm whether he really made that statement or not. The letter is his own letter. He is explaining his alleged quote. How can anyone be accused of misusing what he himself confirmed in his own letter which has been authenticated?
                    I don’t think you quite get it.
                    Perhaps Einstein wrote several letters, all of them with a different and contradictory statement. Perhaps he was forced to write the letter under pressure. Perhaps he was schizoid and didn’t know what he was doing. Feel free to choose. The simplest explanation is that his statement was genuine, and he never withdrew it.

                    Christian tradition, as with any tradition, any ”science”, any political view, can be misused. However, the ”misuse” is often subjective. Typically the crusades fall into this category and are often misrepresented both ways. Persecution of the Jews and homosexuals is never acceptable, but the definition of persecution is also subjective. Today anyone who doesn’t get their own way accuses the other of abuse, or racism, or whatever else is doing the rounds.
                    Whatever any ”Christian” people have done, Jesus never called upon anyone to persecute anyone else. He often showed passive resistance, and so it is and has been with genuine Christians. It doesn’t mean pacifism. It doesn’t mean not defending the weak by using force if necessary. It doesn’t mean doing whatever anyone says just because they will call you an abuser, racist, homophobe, misogynist etc.

                     
  4. Nonfiction

    5 maj, 2013 at 09:37

    Johannes,

    ”Trots alla kritiska kommentarer på sidan för Facebook-evenemanget – där debatten ännu är i full gång – så fick jag inte ens en enda kritisk fråga efter föreläsningen. Det var ju skönt på ett sätt, men jag hade tyckt att det var intressantare och mer spännande med en debat.”

    Det är lite märkligt att du nu efterlyser just kritiska frågor, med tanke på hur mycket energi du vanligtvis lägger på att UNDVIKA kritiska frågor. Du berättar till exempel att evolutionsläran omöjligen kan skapa ”ny information”. Men varje gång man ber dig definiera begreppet eller visa hur det kvantifieras lämnar du bara diskussionen med vaga undanflykter. Ändå skulle jag inte alls bli förvånad om du tog upp denna mystiska, odefinierad (och tydligen odefinierbara) ”information” som ett problem för evolutionsläran under föreläsningen igår.

     
    • Rolf Lampa

      5 maj, 2013 at 19:47

      Nonfiction, läs min och Lars-Johan Erkells diskussioner om definition(er) av information.

      Det kanske kan förklara åt dig att ditt påstående ”…varje gång man ber dig definiera begreppet eller visa hur det kvantifieras lämnar du bara diskussionen” egentligen inte är en fråga utan snarare ett indirekt påstående som implicerar att information kan, och skall, kvantiseras.

      Information måste även beaktas med avseende på sin innebörd och inte endast dess kod (eller bara dess ”protokoll” som vid kommunikationsöverföring).

      Shannon-information har för övrigt mer med protokoll och kommunikation att göra än med innebörd, vilket framgår, om ändirekt, av wikipediaartikeln. Citat:

      Shannon entropy provides an absolute limit on the best possible lossless encoding or compression of any communication.

      // Rolf Lampa

       
      • Nonfiction

        5 maj, 2013 at 20:27

        Rolf,

        Menar du alltså att informationen alltså inte är kvantifierbar? Anders Gärdeborn uttrycker ju sig till exempel på det här viset i sin bok Intelligent Skapelsetro (s.188):

        ”Vi har också sett att ingen någonsin har observerat en mutation som ökat informationsinnehållet i den genetiska koden. Detta är starka indicier för att för att mikroevolutionen – variationen – är planerad av Skaparen, medan makroevolutionen – som kräver tillförsel av information – inte är annat än en darwinistisk illusion”.

        Han talar alltså om ett ”informationsinnehåll” som kan öka — och han talar om ”tillförsel av information”, men tvingas på annan plats erkänna följande:

        ”Det är korrekt att det inte finns någon entydig definition på den information jag talar om. Man brukar säga ”komplex specificerad” information, men det är förstås ingen kvantifierbar storhet.”

        Men du menar alltså någonting helt annat än vad han gör när du talar om information? Jag är ledsen, men jag får verkligen ingen som helst klarhet i vad ni kreationiter menar när ni talar om information.

         
        • Nonfiction

          5 maj, 2013 at 23:16

          Rolf,

          Jag hittade dessutom nyligen den här artikeln på Creation.com: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information. Har du läst den? Jag lyfter ut ett antal citat ur texten:

          ”Despite common usage, Shannon’s ideas of information have little to do with biological information.

          Case in point: A beautiful cut-glass vase can be described quite easily. All one needs is a description of the material and the location of each edge and/or vertex in 3-D space. Yet, a million-dollar vase can be smashed into a worthless pile of sand quite easily. If one wanted to recreate that pile of sand exactly, a tremendous amount of Shannon information would be required to describe the shape of each grain as well as the orientation and placement of grains within the pile. Which has more ‘information’, the pile of sand or the original vase into which a tremendous amount of purposeful design was placed? It depends on which definition of information one uses!”

          Vidare:

          ”A definition of ‘biological information’ is not easy to come by, and this complicates the discussion of the power of mutation to create information. However, pioneers in this field, including Gitt8 and others, have discussed this issue at great length so it is not necessary to reproduce all the arguments here. I will follow Gitt and define information as, “ … an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose”, and state that, “Information is always present when all the following five hierarchical levels are observed in a system: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics” (figure 1).9 While perhaps not appropriate for all types of biological information…”

          Det finns alltså olika former av biologisk information, och Werner Gitts definition kan ringa in en viss typ av biologisk information, men inte alla. Artikelförfattare tröskar vidare en stund för att sedan leverera sin slutsats:

          ”Can mutation create new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘information’.”

          Vad tror du om allt det här?

           
        • Rolf Lampa

          6 maj, 2013 at 02:46

          MISSAT INFORMATIONSTÅG

          Men snälla Nonfiction, informationståget avgick för rätt länge sedan. Till och med Lars-Johan Erkell verkade snajja. Läs med start från inlägget ”Riggat hinder”:
          https://newtonbloggen.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/vad-ar-det-evolutionsbiologer-standigt-maste-paminna-sig-om/#comment-8871

          Samt inlägget ”Kod kan kvantifieras – men inte innebörd
          https://newtonbloggen.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/vad-ar-det-evolutionsbiologer-standigt-maste-paminna-sig-om/#comment-8874

          // Rolf Lampa

           
          • Rolf Lampa

            6 maj, 2013 at 03:05

            SUMMARY ON INFORMATION

            Också värt att notera är att när du Nonfictions säger ”olika typer av information” så svarar jag bara delvis ja. Jämfört med Shannon information (som handlar mer om själva koden, t.ex. som protokoll vid överföring) så uppmärksammar vi skapelsetroende även Innebörden. Dvs budskapet i ett meddelande. Det gäller naturligtvis även Gärdeborn och alla inom föreningen Genesis.

            Och så även professor Verner Gitt som alltså inte talar om en ”annan typ” av information, däremot delar han upp informationens beståndsdelar mer i detalj och definierar dessa. Och det gör han verkligen bra dessutom.

            Men alla kan inte gå direkt på överkurs inom informationsteori. Så jag har för egen del sammanfattat mycket kort det mest grundläggande hos information som gör det lättare att snabbt se poängen. Information består i grund och botten av:

            1. Kod.
            2. Innebörd
            ————————–
            = Information.

            Ifråga om huruvida informationsinnehåll kan kvantiseras eller inte kan svaren låta lite olika beroende på vem man frågar, men svaret är egentligen mycket enkelt:

            1. Kod – Kan kvantiseras
            2. Innebörd – Kan inte kvantiseras.
            ——————————————–
            = Information – Kan bara delvis kvantifieras (dvs koden).

            Detta kan de flesta intuitivt förstå efter en stund eftertanke. Till och med Lars Johan Erkell och jag kom slutligen överens om ovanstående.

            Och, det faktum att inte alla har uttryckt sig exakt med de ovanstående termerna betyder inte att definitionen ovan är i ”konflikt” med de övriga aspekter på information som framhålls av andra (t.ex. Gitts, Gärdeborn och Schmidt).

            // Rolf Lampa

             
            • Nonfiction

              6 maj, 2013 at 15:49

              Rolf,

              Så vad är det då Anders Gärdeborn talar om när han menar att makroevolution kräver en ”informationsökning”? Vad — exakt — är det han efterlyser då och hur avgöra man att en informationsökning har skett?

              Vidare tror jag du missförstod mig: det var artikeförfattaren på Creation.com (Robert W. Carter) som menade att det fanns olika former av biologisk information och att Gitts definition blott ringade in en av dem. Han menade dessutom att mutationer faktiskt kan skapa ”ny information”.

              Har du några tankar om detta?

               
              • Rolf Lampa

                7 maj, 2013 at 16:00

                Rent generellt kan man säga att information måste ”öka” för att specificera meningsfull innebörd. Men en ökning av specificeraad meningsfull innebörd implicerar inte en kvantitativ ökning av själva koden. Like lite som en kvantitativ ökning av koden med någon självklarhet ökar mängden innebörd innebörd.

                Exempel på kodsekvenser med identisk innebörd:

                A. Eva loves Adam (en = 12)
                B. Eva älskar Adam (sv = 13)
                C. Eeva rakkaus Aatami (fi = 17)

                Vi kan även ändra innebörden med att lägga till kod:

                B2. Eva älskar INTE Adam (13 + 4 = 17)

                Att både den finska och svenska koden har samma kodkvantitet (17) innebär inte att innebörden är den samma. Ett mer rättvist exempel är dock att göra jämförelser endast med samma kodsystem, dvs svenska ord jämförs mot svenska ord:

                B2. Eva älskar Adam (sv = 13)
                B3. Eva hatar Adam (sv = 12)

                B3 innehåller lika mycket information som B2 (om samma sak). Men varken koden eller innebörden är identisk. Exemplet antyder varför man inte kan förenkla informationsbegreppet till enbart en kvantifierbar räcka koder eftersom koden i sig (dess specifika organisation) representerar någonting icke-kvantifierbart.

                Missförstå inte nu – bara för att kodsekvensen ”scmqr ösxzml fnnvs rfrnfkw” uppenbart innehåller MINDRE information än kodsekvensen ”dessa tecken däremot har innebörd” betyder inte detta att informationen (som samlingsbegrepp) är absolut kvantifierbar i någon av kodsekveserna. Det vore som att säga att att ditt mänskliga värde kan mätas eftersom din längd och vikt kan mätas. Det hindrar dock inte att vi påstår att ditt värde är STÖRRE än bakteriens värde. En relativ skillnad kan finnas utan att vi kan bestämma ett absolutvärde. Alla förstår intuitivt varför: Det är inte din längd och vikt som konstituerar skillnaden i värde.

                Kort sagt: Informationsinnehållet står inte i kvantitativ proportion till koden. En sorts informationens ”Heisenbergs osäkerhetsprincip”.

                // Rolf Lampa

                 
  5. Lars Johan Erkell

    6 maj, 2013 at 14:20

    Rolf,
    Visst, här är en punkt där vi faktiskt är överens – den ”specificerade information” ID-förespråkare så gärna talar om är odefinierad och omätbar. Det placerar dig i opposition mot de flesta ID-förespråkare (heja Rolf! :-)).

    För ett av ID-rörelsens kärnargument är just att ”specificerad information”, alltså ”meningsfull” information, information som betyder något särskilt, är kvantifierbar. William Dembski säger i sin bok No Free Lunch att ”specified complexity” är mätbar, dock inte exakt hur den skulle vara det. Själva huvudargumentet i Stephen Meyers bok Signature in the Cell är följande:

    “Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for information in the cell”

    Göran Schmidt citerade just detta ställe på ett föredrag jag lyssnade på, och han lyfte fram det som ett tungt argument. Så ni är inte alls överens, som du påstår.

     
    • Rolf Lampa

      6 maj, 2013 at 15:19

      GUDSANHÄNGARE

      Som jag tidigare påpekat, huvudargumentet med information är att det undandrar sig en naturalistisk förklaring.

      I krig skulle din naturalistiska position motsvara – ”du är död”.

      Att alla du nämner anser att information har mätbart innehåll (inklusive jag) innebär endast hos vissa evolutionsbiologer att alla som hävdar just detta (mätbarhet) ”inte är överens.” 🙂

      Håhåjajja. Dom där evolutionsbiologerna är en finurliga rackare måste man säga.

      // Rolf Lampa

      (För övrigt är jag uttryckligen inte anhängare av ID-lägret även om flera av deras argument är väldigt bra.)

       
      • Lars Johan Erkell

        6 maj, 2013 at 15:45

        Rolf,
        Problemet med informationsargumentet att det undandrar sig alla typer av förklaringar så länge informationen inte är definierad. Det är ett låtsasargument. Men vem bryr sig? Ingen kreationist i alla fall; det låter ju så vetenskapligt och bra med ”information”.

        Intressant är att du nu vänder på klacken och menar att den information med innebörd som vi diskuterar ändå går att mäta. Så här skrev du här ovan:

        1. Kod – Kan kvantiseras
        2. Innebörd – Kan inte kvantiseras.
        ——————————————–
        = Information – Kan bara delvis kvantifieras (dvs koden).

        Det är glasklart att du menar att innebörden inte kan kvantifieras. Men den ”specificerade information” ID-anhängarna talar om karakteriseras just av att den är kod med innebörd. Det är just det ordet ”specifikation” betyder i sammanhanget.

         
        • Rolf Lampa

          7 maj, 2013 at 17:35

          INFORMATION – WHAT AND WHAT NOT

          Lars Johan Erkell : ”Det är glasklart att du menar att innebörden inte kan kvantifieras.

          Tack. Vi är rörande överens. Eller, jag vet inte hur det skulle gå till i så fall.

          Specificitet
          Lars Johan Erkell : ”Men den ”specificerade information” ID-anhängarna talar om karakteriseras just av att den är kod med innebörd. Det är just det ordet ”specifikation” betyder i sammanhanget.

          Hm. Du har en poäng. Specificitet är dock itne helt synonymt med specifikation, men ditt påpekande föranleder ändå ett förtydligande av VAD man egentligen ”mäter” då man kvantifierar ”information”.

          Men först: Även vi skapelsetroende har pågående diskussioner i syfte att fördjupa vår insikt om information. Och din kommentar visar på behovet av att dela upp eller se på information ur fler aspekter än den grova indelning jag brukar nämna. En finare indelning visar nämligen mer exakt vad som enligt t.ex. Dembski kan kvantifieras på ett meningsfullt sätt.

          Ny aspekt: Specificitet.

          Specificitet relaterar mindre till innebörd (dvs mindre till det vanliga ordet specifikation) än till kodens ”grad av organisation” (se ”organisation i mitt inlägg här ovanför). Men hur avgör man vad som kan anses vara mer eller mindre ”organisation”? En referenspunkt måste finnas, ungefär som ”vikt” här på jorden förhåller sig till kroppars inbördes massa.

          Jämfört med vad?
          Ifråga om information verkar referenspunkten finnas i ”tolkningsbarheten.” Specificiteten är alltså en egenskap hos koden och inte hos innebörden, och graden av specificitet (kvantitativ egenskap) fortsätter att vara oberoende av innebörden.

          Exempel
          A. 3tt f0r2oek att 6evi2a d3tta sir du haer.
          B. Ett försök att bevisa detta ser du här.

          Har inte nyligen läst på om Dembskis specificitet, men även om specificitet avser en högre abstraktionsnivå av själva koden, så kommer man inte ifrån att tre delar samverkar ifråga om ”entydigheten” av innebörden i ett meddelande: Kodens organisation (se likheter och olikheter mellan A och B ovan) samt mottagarens/tolkens förmåga att urskilja avsedd innebörd. A och B illustrerar alltså två problem – kodens grad av och därmed beroende av ”korrekthet” (organisation, eller, specificitet) står inte i (känd) proportion till ”mängden” innebörd. De flesta människor urskiljer identisk innebörd i både A och B.

          Detekterbart budskap
          Ditt påpekande var bra. Skarpt. Det visar behovet av att nyansera ”kvantifiering av koden” genom att i en kod försöka urskilja kodens organisation, och graden av mätbarhet hos denna. Men, organisation per se är inte ett mått på (Dembskis) specificitet. Den står i relation till sådan avsikt som kan detekteras av en mottagare / tolk.

          What not – enligt ID
          Dembskis specificitet indikerar dock bara indirekt avsikt (om jag förstått det rätt). Nämligen genom att mäta icke-avsikt! Kortfattat innebär det att om ett materials fysiska egenskaper med nödvändighet framtvingar vissa mönster (t.ex iskristaller) så finns ingen särskild avsikt med just det enskilda mönstret än vad som finns i alla andra (iskristall)mönster. Citat av Krister Renard ur ”ARS MEDICINA KLM-AKTUELLT”, organ för Kristna Läkare och Medicinare i Sverige, nr 3-4 2006:

          Grusgångens konfiguration uppfyller utan tvekan kriteriet på att vara mycket osannolik. Men som sagt, detta ensamt bevisar inte att den är designad. Behes nästa kriterium för design är:

          2. Systemet eller föremålet måste uppfylla kravet på det Dembski kallar specificitet. Det innebär att systemet måste uppvisa en ordning eller struktur som inte enbart är en konsekvens av systemets delar och deras inneboende egenskaper. Denna ordning måste kunna härledas till något utanför systemet, som inte är en nödvändig följd av systemets byggstenar och deras egenskaper. En snöflinga eller en saltkristall (hur vackra och osannolika dessa än må vara) uppfyller inte kravet på specificitet.

          Snöflingans struktur och saltkristallens form är helt och hållet en nödvändig följd av de ingående atomernas egenskaper. (länk till doc)

          Klasser + Klassattribut
          Specificitetens plats i min indelning av information som en klasskomposition av delklasserna:

          1. Kod
          2. Innebörd

          … torde alltså ligga närmast koden på grund av kvantifieringen primärt avser kodens (grad av) organisation. Specificitet blir då ett attribut hos koden:

          1. Kod (egenskap: specificitet)
          2. Innebörd

          Indirekt mått
          Specificitet kan genom sitt mått på icke-avsikt således uppfattas som ett indirekt sätt att indikera (avsedd) innebörd (dvs icke-avsikt i proportionellt omvänt förhållande till avsikt).

          Hur långt detta angreppssätt räcker för att de facto indikera innebörd är jag personligen inte helt klar över (eftersom jag inte ägnat så mycket uppmärksamhet åt saken). Begreppets mer uttalade anhängare är därför säkert bättre på den saken än jag. Som jag uppfattar det gäller dock att inte MÄNGDEN innebörd kan kvantifieras, endast ATT (eller om) innebörd föreligger i en kod. Eller vilken grad av sannolikhet för att innebörd föreligger.

          Skarp iakttagelse Erkell!
          Ditt påpekande om att ”…den ”specificerade information” ID-anhängarna talar om karakteriseras just av att den är kod med innebörd” ligger alltså väldigt nära en viktig poäng. Men därmed är inte tydligt utpekat huruvida det är koden eller informationen som anses ”äga” innebörden och inte heller att innebörd kan mätas. Men helt klart gör du Lars Johan en skarp iakttagelse här som jag tror berikar allas förståelse av informationsbegreppet (eller inbördes förhållanden mellan delar av det som återstår att försöka bättre bestämma).

          // Rolf Lampa

           
          • Rolf Lampa

            7 maj, 2013 at 17:40

            Mm, ”tre delar” blev bara två: Det kan dock delas upp i 1. Koden, 2. dess organisation samt 3. mottagarens/tolkens förmåga att urskilja avsedd innebörd.
            Signifikansen i den tredje delen för just Dembskis begrepp ”specificitet” är jag dock osäker på. De två första är i alla fall primära.

             

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s