Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action

originally posted by: whereislogic

Except before your comment about "what [Shapiro] actually says" I had already mentioned he was an evolutionary philosopher and philosophical naturalist (which was also the reason I mentioned the "Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship" when first bringing him up).
Otherwise brilliant play there, oh how you love the debate mindgames.

So you mention he already stands for a couple terms you made up and then quote mined for a quote to attribute to him in an attempt to purposely use him as an appeal to authority against what you say his position is now? A little disingenuous dont ya think? Or did I totally miss something?

a reply to: Cypress
You missed reason, logic and honesty. You spotted the red herring debate game to distract away from what is actually quoted perfectly though. You even described or demonstrated it quite nicely with false accusations of:

- quote mining
- appeals to authority (when you simply don't like what he's saying because it's not tickling your ears, but having no issues when he's publicizing and sharing his opinions about evolutionary philosophies, then some people even feel the need to bring those up as a red herring, even implying those quotations somehow sets the one who used the initial quotation straight, as if it negates the earlier quotation, or as if I left that out on purpose when I already acknowledged the possibility of bringing that up twice, so there's no need to do that other than to play a game of false accusations; all I initially did was quote a "professor", quoting Tzarchasm's first comment in this thread and being reminded of how ironic this all is to me)
- 'are you saying...', 'you say...'

I was clear about "his position" as soon as I mentioned the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship, and made it even clearer after that, which isn't really necessary, cause most of the people who regularly post in this forum are familiar with Shapiro as well as some are familiar with my quotations of him (and there is google). It's just a game being played, nothing serious or rational about it. Quoting him on his views regarding evolutionary philosophies is not going to negate the other quotation and doesn't prove I'm quote mining especially when I've already made his position regarding those clear.

Don't like the term "evolutionary philosophies" or the derived terminology "evolutionary philosophers" that also comes from others using the term "evolutionary scientists" and "evolutionists"? I usually use "evolutionary philosophers" when referring to some people's practice of teaching and promoting evolutionary philosophies, at that point, they cease acting as scientists and are acting in the capacity of philosopher, or is that "as"? Evolutionary philosophies are the chosen subject of my OP as well as the subject of Shapiro's quotation (of course because there are so many, this does not mean he was talking about all of them, that's why I also included a video from a Professor Emeritus of Biology in the same comment, who talked about another related evolutionary philosophy/idea under the label "chemical evolution", where the word "evolution" is used in such a manner that it implies being caused by natural processes alone, no intelligent interference). Here's where I mentioned where you can find more examples of the evolutionary philosophies I'm talking about in the OP, or other ways to describe or define them:

I could say something about the video about "Define evolution" and specifically about what he said regarding de-evolution (and the common mental trigger regarding the philosophy/idea that 'evolution has no direction'). It's only de-evolution if you use his definition for the word "evolution". Which is pretty honest in representing a lot of things the word "evolution" has been used for especially on forums such as this that are titled "Origins and Creationism". Or the subjects he is clearly talking about and having issues with. And if promoters of evolutionary philosophies are using the word "evolution" to refer to or in stories about the subjects he spoke about at the end of the video when defining the word "evolution", then any objection of him doing that as well when responding to these evolutionary philosophies is irrational and unreasonable.

So have fun with your red herring party, but I'll just wait until someone wants to adress anything about the evolutionary philosophies and myths I'm talking about. The debate about a proper definition for the word "evolution" is in another direction btw. How people use the word is how it should be defined. So I'm using the term "evolutionary philosophies" instead, cause people can't be clear about the word "evolution" anymore. So debate away (also literally away, as in somewhere else) if you want to talk about "evolution" while giving it your own preferred definition and excluding every usage of it that you don't want to talk about out of convenience and denial of reality (including the reality that evolutionary philosophers are using the word "evolution" in those myths that I'm referring to and described in various ways and terminologies in my quotations and videos that I shared, and always when using this word in these myths it is implied that the change is happening because of natural processes alone; unlike in usages of the word "evolution" on other occasions).

I.e. the common denominator and philosophy in evolutionary philosophies or myths is:

'Mother Nature did it'

Not spelled out like that obviously. Sometimes not even mentioned at all. It is the hidden common denominator with which one can tell the different usages of "evolution" apart the way one seperates fact from fiction. That is obviously not to say that changes can not be caused by natural processes alone, it's just that most of the specific changes spoken of in these evolutionary philosophies were not caused by natural processes alone, and there is no logical or reasonable evidence to suggest that they were. Only misleading, deceptive, dishonest and propagandistic so-called "evidence" (or presented in such a manner as if it were evidence or a reason to believe the myths, or even consider them plausible). For that reason there are a number of quotations from evolutionists that have studied these evolutionary philosophies in detail that are very interesting for considerations. But I'm still in doubt whether or not I should take the time to put them in my next comment since you'll so busy with your routine that the same accusations will just be made without saying anything about the quotation itself:

- you're quote mining
- you're appealing to authority
- it's just their opinion (we haven't had that one yet cause the red herring party is still going strong, but we have had the claim that their other opinions that are tickling the ears of some people here rather than something they don't want to hear, acknowledge or even think about, is "science"; their other opinions, in case that sentence was too long)
- 'are you saying that he/she is saying or believing...' (you can read the quote and draw your own conclusions can't ye? Especially a telling question to ask when someone hasn't said anything about the quote yet, in terms of the motivation to ask such a question. People liking their little straw men and Don Quijote Windmill Giants? Enjoyed your victory over them? I'm just sitting here by the fence watching people fight battles against shadows. For months on end, years even. Such a waste. Paul was right:
"always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)

a reply to: whereislogic

Philosophy and science are completely different realms. You are intentionly trying to tie the two together thinking you are sounding intellegent and supporting your opinion; however, in reality it is just showing another level of ignorance.

The irony here is the church went after those who could be called early scientists such as Galileo and Darwin because they postulated or proved philosophers wrong. Now here we are hundreds of years later and people continue to push a broken narrative.

a reply to: Cypress

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Source: Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton

Source: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica*

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica
Science Synonyms, Science Antonyms | Thesaurus.com:

knowledge

Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Or another terminology could be the "established facts" the Encyclopaedia Britannica used or Newton's "certain Truths". "A truth" (noun) is namely also a synonym for "a fact".
I've made comments elsewhere what the word "philosophy" means but I'm usually talking about "philosophies/ideas" so there should be little doubt as to what I'm referring to. Not sure if my commentary here used the word "science" before this comment in order to avoid a useless debate about it with people who are only looking for something to disagree with.

* = concerning the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, see the video below:

Allthough with the above information in mind, a person who may read this may excercise his ability to seperate fact from fiction (or wrong/incorrect opinions) regarding the word "symbiogenesis" used in the quotation* of Shapiro that Phase liked so much, regarding which he said:

He's adding (relatively) new science to the mix. Which is *drumroll* science.

* = it's actually a quatation of wikipedia's explanation of his views/opinions/beliefs regarding those subjects, what I quoted from Shapiro was a direct quotation, the source of which is an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education

This comment of mine may give you some clues to determin if Phase's claim above is true/correct, without error or false/untrue/incorrect. Given what the word "science" stands for. Can we at least agree that mythological tales of something that has never been observed, with no indications from other observations that it's even possible, cannot possibly qualify as "science"? Or honestly or appropiately be qualified as "science"? Perhaps regardless as to how you want to define the word "science" (avoiding debate about that)? Probably not. Probably left the door open for some excuse to disagree on something. I mean, there's gotta be something we can agree on?! It doesn't have to be like this the whole time:

Or this:

Oh btw, since I already accused myself for a certain level of sarcasm (for the sake of honesty and truth, the unsalted version, which is a Dutch expression that somewhat hints at being blunt and uninhibited, not dressing it up with the usual niceties of conversation), Shapiro's views/opinions regarding "symbiogenesis" a.k.a. “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis” (quoting the Encyclopædia Britannica) is making him "look like a bird who swallowed a plate" to me. Quoting a line from the video above and hinting at the phrase "the latest fashion" to think about.

It also reminds me of the video below allthough I'd swap "Percy, It's Green." with "James, no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible."

The video is particularly appropiate when also keeping Phase's terminology "new science" (as if it's a new discovery) in mind. Pardon for using the video in the other thread as well, I get this feeling a lot on ATS. It try to keep some time in between posting them to express those feelings.

a reply to: whereislogic
edit: "since I already accused myself..."

I meant "excused" obviously.

And the 'color of science is proper evidence', and I obviously mean that rather figuratively and metaphorically and making heavy use of something that's said about gold in the video.

Oh and it's Phage I see, not Phase.

And it wasn't wikipedia describing Shapiro's views in his quotation but thethirdwayofevolution.com (it might also be somewhere in or on the back of his book sold for almost 30 bucks at Amazon containing discussion about events for which no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible; listed under "Medicine & Health Sciences").

a reply to: whereislogic

Yay! A bunch of claims that have been repeated in almost every recent thread in this section. Good thing you made your own thread so we can debunk this for the hundredth time. Can you please just post the science directly, instead of youtube videos? Animations do not prove anything, and neither do people babbling in youtube videos without references.

Here are the quotations from people like Shapiro that I spoke about earlier. The quotations are in between the background information about the subject being spoken of. What harm can it do to consider what they're admitting to?

I'm just quoting them for your consideration, not saying anything about it (other than what I said above obviously). Obviously, it's not going to tickle the ears (be pleasant, what you want to hear) for many here. But that's also a bad personal excuse to dismiss it as mere opinion (or variants of dismissal):

They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1
...
Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2*
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3
He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”4
* = Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. ...
Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 [whereislogic: some people only complain about the usage of the word "impossible" when certain people do it in a certain context] RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a selfreplicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland*, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6
* = Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

"not yet fully understood":
Long live the Great We Don't Know (Yet) but Mother Nature did it anyway, damn the evidence, and damn the argument of induction proposed as a consideration in the question below:

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. ... It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

Source: The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking
Isaac Newton regarding a proper and proven effective method in the pursuit of science/knowledge about realities, what one may call a "scientific method":

Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.

Source: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Sources by number:

1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (NASA - Life's Working Definition: Does It Work?), accessed 3/17/2009.

originally posted by: whereislogic
(including the reality that evolutionary philosophers are using the word "evolution" in those myths that I'm referring to and described in various ways and terminologies in my quotations and videos that I shared, and always when using this word in these myths it is implied that the change is happening because of natural processes alone; unlike in usages of the word "evolution" on other occasions).

I.e. the common denominator and philosophy in evolutionary philosophies or myths is:

'Mother Nature did it'

Not spelled out like that obviously. Sometimes not even mentioned at all. It is the hidden common denominator ...

Actually, sometimes it is more or less spelled out, but it's rare, see the sign at 7:38:

a reply to: whereislogic

Is it difficult to come up with the google searchterm "Bill Nye education" when you're the one bringing him up? It should lead you to the same places as me, perhaps at the same time you can figure out for me which PhD. degrees he earned with multiple years of attending classes, taking tests and doing and fulfilling all the requirements that those without the right friends in the right places have to do and fulfill. There has to be something?

First:
As a general rule, PhD degrees in science disciplines are not earned by going to classes or taking tests. TEACHING classes and GIVING tests are often part of the duties of a PhD candidate, of course, because they are often employed by the degree conferring institution to do just that. In general, PhD degrees are earned by research.

Honorary degrees are something else, of course.

Now I have always been aware that Bill Nye does not have a PhD. He has a Bachelor of Science in Engineering (so do I by the way - his is in mechanical mine is in systems).

Bill Nye never claims to be a 'Doctor' - NEVER. He is "Bill Nye the Science Guy" not Dr. Bill Nye. Customary protocol dictates that honorary degrees do NOT confer the bearer the right to the honorarium 'Doctor'. Bill Nye honors that custom and makes no claim to the title Doctor. An honorary degree signifies an award from the granting institution, not an acknowledgement of educational achievement. Edit: "Dr." Billy Graham ALWAYS dishonors that custom - he has only an honorary degree. Benjamin Franklin SOMETIMES used "Dr. Franklin" as a joke or as an ironic putdown.

Second:
A scientist is not 'defined' by whether or not he/she has a PhD or not. Bill Nye is most definitely a scientist and has participated in many 'science' projects for Boeing Corporation and NASA including designing experiments and equipment for the Mars Rover.

Third:
Bill Nye's major contribution to science may, perhaps, be better described as 'educational'. He is an educator above all else. Science is pointless if it cannot be communicated. Not all scientists can communicate and those who can communicate and describe often obscure scientific principles are exceedingly valuable.

Attempting to denigrate Bill Nye because he doesn't have an advanced degree is simple character assasination. Do you denigrate all teachers in that way? Or just one's who choose TV and radio and internet venues over the classroom? Did each of your High School teachers in Math, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Home Ec, Auto Shop, English Lit have PhD's? Did you object that they didn't therefore have the 'gravitas' to speak about and explain the current best practice and advances in their particular topic?

Bill Nye is a TEACHER who understands the topics about which he teaches and is very good at communicating technical information to a non-technical audience. There are many educators that do a great job doing that, Bill Nye is just one of thousands, one who happens to be in a high-profile role. Because he does such a good job, in such a high profile role, there are occasionally institutions that want to honor him for his achievements. Honorary Degrees are one way of doing that. By the way, the award ceremonies are often tied to the fund raising programs of the institution ("All Alumni are invited to our award dinner ($nnn per seat, or $nnnn per table), and don't forget to write us a check for the new library/student union/chemistry building on the way out the door").

a reply to: rnaa
I didn't (attempt to) denigrate him, someone else presented him as a "Professor" I should be listening to (or whose "class", or perhaps area of expertise, which is engineering actually, I perhaps should be studying or didn't study for); as a red herring, distraction away* from my quotations from a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and a Professor Emeritus of Biology, explaining their conclusions about the topic that was being discussed. That topic being evolutionary philosophies, as a whole*, from what is referred to as "cosmic evolution" to "chemical evolution" to "biological evolution" (anything that is said in relation to those sub-topics that qualifies as a philosophy/idea, and in particular the unverified ones). The Professor Emeritus of Biology was discussing chemical evolution followed by biological evolution as it pertains to or a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" or "the chemical evolution theory of life". I was only asking questions about Bill Nye because I was genuinely interested in his education. I already indicated being aware of his Bachelor (B.S.) degree in engineering when quoting from someone else's comment on another site. So no need to tell me things I already know (which counts for most of your commentary about it).

1st * = Cause they weren't tickling his ears, telling him what he wants to hear, discuss (rationally and reasonably) or even think about.
2nd * = Part of which Professor Shapiro referred to as: "has functioned more as a philosophical belief system".

Since you brought up NASA. Here's someone who works at NASA in the field of laser physics:

Here's a nuclear physicist and astrophysicist from NASA:

And here's a geologist that served on advisory committees for NASA:

There are also biochemists, molecular biologists and several other professions in the list of 14 videos and interviews about these subjects.

For those who will watch the videos, here's an example of a prophecy in the bible:

2 Timothy 4:3,4

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the beneficial teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories*.

1st * = Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”
2nd * = From the Greek "mythos" (myths, or using Professor Shapiro's terminology "a philosophical belief system")

I liked this admittal:

...despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring* from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

*: not by means of creation by an intelligent being or beings but in the manner and by the causation described by those proposing the subjects they refer to as "the hypothesis of abiogenesis", "spontaneous generation", "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory of life", to keep it nicely vague and confusing and make people forget about the many refutations of this myth in the past, from Isaac Newton to Pasteur. And to obscure the connection and demonstration of the same mode of thinking and arguing (related to propaganda and indoctrination, encouraging people to cling to and expand on their fantasy and imagination, their wishful thinking, or using Behe's quoted terminology from an evolutionary philosopher critical of his book: "wishful speculations") that is present when evolutionary philosophies under the banner of "biological evolution" and "cosmic evolution" are being sold and argued in favor for (promoted, taught, indoctrinated, conditioned into people's minds as sensible arguments and so-called "evidence" or plausible reasons to "accept" their myths, cause they don't like to use the word "believe" and admit that it's all based on blind biased unreasonable belief/faith with a religious origin in Mother Nature/Gaia-worship, 'Nature did it', 'Nature found a way to...', 'It evolved a...', 'the universe...will create itself...', the last one is just a rephrase of 'nature created itself', 'nature did it', 'the universe did it', chance, accidentily without foresight, planning, purpose and intentionality).

“no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

Nothing, nada, noppes, pure fantasy and wishful thinking (hidden behind persuasive arguments involving the phrase 'science does not deal with absolutes'; opening the door for more unsupported illogical unreasonable fantasizing and neurotic speculation to sound smart for often financial purposes). Especially the bolded part is interesting in relation to those who like to give the impression that great advances in knowledge are being made (and have been made since Huxley called it the "hypothesis of abiogenesis" and multiple so-called hypotheses and theories regarding the subject continued to sprout). Or that the outlook of future advancements in knowledge and clarification regarding this subject of "chemical evolution" or "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane and Oparin) has ever looked (from the start) and is continuing to look promising. Which it clearly never has and never will because of the nature of this whole mode of unreasonable line of reasoning and thinking about the origin of life, attempting to find arguments and so-called evidence for a desperate fantasy/myth along with submyths erronuously referred to as a hypothesis or hypotheses or even theories (possibly hoping people will think of a "scientific theory") or painted, presented and marketed as a field of scientific inquiry in an elaborate attempt to 'evade the argument of induction by myths and wishful fantasies', one step beyond Newton's warning so "that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses" (cause it or they never was/were and never will be a hypothesis or hypotheses as defined by those who like to define and teach their scientific terminologies >consider eg. panspermia).

Once more, the major parts of Newton's proven and effective method to discover facts/certainties about reality and acquiring knowledge of them (i.e. what one could call a "scientific method"), the method that gave rise to what others after him have referred to as "modern science" and is responsible for ALL major breakthroughs and discoveries in all fields of science since Newton's time:

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

If it helps you understand what he's talking about given your possible indoctrinated view of what the word "science" stands for, you can read "science" there at the end instead of "experimental philosophy". Just remember that that's not correct as to what the word "science" stands for or is supposed to stand for before notions regarding what it stands for were added by cunning philosophers selling their erronuous philosophies, false ideas, false stories, myths as "science" and their fantasizing behaviour as "doing science" or presenting hypotheses, hypothesizing.

And here's how inductive reasoning applies to the subject of the origin of life, biomolecular machinery and technology, design, etc.
Introduction up to about 3 minutes, first point is the most crucial at 5:00 - 13:22, but the details such as The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

and how to apply that to these subjects that I spoke about in this comment and also how it compares to the wishful fantasizing demonstrated by evolutionary philosophers and philosophical naturalists are discussed after 29:20-39:28:
Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto
Isaac Newton applies the same inductive reasoning to the same subject of God's existence (an "intelligent being", later in the video described as "God") in the video I shared earlier on this page so you can complete what I just quoted about it from Newton and see that the so-called ID-proponents like Michael Behe have not invented anything new. However there is one noteworthy development in the field of biology that relates to something he says at 8:16-8:51 for which he gives some examples later on.

Since Newton's time his argument of (and conclusion by) induction regarding God's existence or the existence of an intelligent being has gained strength while the "objections" have remained rooted in wishful fantasy and non-existent or fake hypotheses.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Cypress

* = concerning the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, see the video below:

Allthough with the above information in mind, a person who may read this may excercise his ability to seperate fact from fiction (or wrong/incorrect opinions) regarding the word "symbiogenesis" used in the quotation* of Shapiro that Phase liked so much, regarding which he said:
"He's adding (relatively) new science to the mix. Which is *drumroll* science."

Note that in the video above about Newton's science/knowledge about reality, he uses his argument of induction at 2:45 in the form of a rhetorical question, in case you miss it because of that. His refutation of the philosophy/idea, myth and later so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" or "hypothesis of abiogenesis" or general notion that 'Nature or natural forces, "atoms, mechanical laws", the laws of nature, "fortuitous jumblings of atoms", chance did it' is short and succinct but flawless in its logic. Very reasonable to me and fits perfectly with all my observations and experiments or research into experiments and this subject (again using inductive reasoning, perhaps some people are more familiar with the term "common sense" which doesn't exactly specify what Michael Behe nicely explains with his picture of a duck).

Here's some more from Newton about the subject when considering our solar system (which is a subtopic, one line of evidence, the evidence from biology is in my opinion more obvious and requires less of a detailed view, which is useful in this world where people are encouraged or conditioned to have a superficial biased view about these subjects favoring things like the notion that the universe is way too chaotic to be the result of design, without considering the bigger picture of our unique position and conditions within this uninhabitable universe for beings like the ones on earth, our little carefully protected cradle for life in a relatively quiet corner of the universe compared to some of the other regions where things collide on a rather regular basis):
Pillars of culture - Sir Isaac Newton
Talking about order (and the evidence for design and a designer+creator or designers+creators and switching back to biology):


The topic of interdependency is crucial regarding the notion of a step by step gradual evolutionary process for the first living organism that is capable of passing anything on to the next generation that might change a little bit; there are minimum requirements for life and reproduction to occur, observed and understood (well established, factual) interdependency of the machinery involved completely refutes imaginary 'lifeforms' that only supposedly possess the capability of chemically evolving into the first official lifeform (as one blurs the lines between what's required to be called alive and ignore the need for reproduction and replication) in so-called hypotheses about so-called "RNA based lifeforms", "protocells", etc. It is also crucial when you're talking about going from one bodyplan or blueprint such as that of a prokaryotic bacteria to a completely different bodyplan or blueprint for something like a human, regardless of how much time you have for that process. The notion of "gradual" (in relation to multiple generations) is a real problem when it comes to interdependent machinery involved in preserving the information related to the operation and replication of that machinery and any possible preserved changes in consequent generations of all the systems of machinery that make up the lifeform and allow it to metabolize, reproduce, etc. (see requirements in playlist below after the video below, which is an introduction to something for consideration: the topic of interdependency).
Interdependency: Unicellular Yeast Cell Interactome & Linux Kernel Design+Development Visualization
The man below actually addresses interdependency without using that word as he also quotes Darwin about the subject without using the word, this subject involving interdependency is what refutes Darwin's and all derived philosophies of philosophical naturalism&pantheism and provides the demonstration he was well aware of but chose to ignore and pretend wasn't already well established as a fact in his time as well, talking past it and pretending it still required that demonstration cause he preferred encouraging and applying denial of the fact/reality of interdependent machinery, ordered and interdependent within systems of machinery in reproducing living organisms, which demonstrated and continues to demonstrate all his myths (derived from Pagan religious Pantheism and Mother Nature worship but stripped of its theism) to be impossible and the equivalent of suggesting the existence of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters as the cause for both the origin and further diversification of life (in which the same pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters and a bunch of other imaginary lifeforms are suggested, and millions are implied by following through the suggested logic of slow transitions over multiple generations).
Darwin's quotation at 6:25, examples of interdependent systems of machinery starting at 2:27:
Interdependency vs "successive, slight modifications"

a reply to: whereislogic

Keep that propaganda coming, Mr nologic. Can't just let a thread die, you gotta keep the preaching alive.

Regarding the terms "general induction" and "drawing general Conclusions from them [Experiments and Observations] by Induction", the most general you can keep it is talking, reasoning or thinking about a creator (designer) or creators (designers) with a level of technological advancement and technical know-how (intelligence and knowledge) that corresponds to the technology in question (the biomolecular machinery required for a living organism in any reasonable proposition about the cause for the origin of life or a specific organ, biomolecular machine, machine part, system of biomolecular machinery, organelles, different interdependent cell types that can only function together in a specific cooperative and coordinated manner, etc.).

Or to keep that shorter: a creator (designer) or creators (designers)

That's what I primarily mean by more general than narrowing the line of reasoning down to 1 specific creator such as the God described in the bible for which there is a lot of evidence available to take those steps after the first logical step as well and narrow down the candidates to that specific individual to see and understand the same things that Newton was seeing and understanding and discovered as being factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive regarding God's existence using the same methodology that helped him discover the law of gravity, the laws of motion, various subjects within the field of optics, physics and mathematics such as inventing calculus, kickstart what has become known as "modern science" and his work that I'm quoting from being appropiately described as it is in the video:

"the greatest book of science ever written, bar none."

I'd like to propose Newton's source material for his methodology and thirst for knowledge though as the greatest book of knowledge ever written, God's Word and counsel in the bible, which Newton followed dilligently allowing these results. I have no doubt he had a keen understanding of Hebrews 5:11-14 (especially verse 14):

But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

*: Or “their perceptive powers.”

...distinguish both true and false, fact and fiction. Honesty (in reasoning) and dishonesty, propaganda, false reasoning, fallacies, evading arguments of induction by hypotheses, false stories, false reasoning, myths, wishful fantasies, elaborate imaginations, sophisticated excuses to not have to deal with the established facts and convince oneself or others that they aren't clear or conclusive enough for acceptance of them because you've got these elaborate stories that might be possible too, who knows? What is truth anyway right? Let's go back to Pontius Pilate's way of reasoning about whether or not a person can figure out what's really true and false or should just accept what the (Roman) government is teaching through their educational system and want you to believe is true or go with the promotion of the false sense everyone is making their own truth as they are kept ignorant of all the subtle influences of this system of things and the spirit of the world on what they end up believing as being true or the most likely case, scenario, or how they think about the subject of "determining what is true", "truth" alltogether; which are actually false misleading philosophies, false stories, lies, falsehoods, fiction, mental poison intended for the effect of keeping people in figurative darkness, "deprived of" a clear view of "truth" or what is really true/certain/absolute/conclusive/factual; see 1 Timothy 6:5).

Just to copy-paste part of my comment about the subject and myths connected to the word "symbiogenesis" a.k.a. or including "The Endosymbiont Hypothesis" (which is what Shapiro was referring to and is neither "science" as Phage claimed nor a "hypothesis" as evolutionary philosophers claim) from that other thread:

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

No experimental (proper) evidence to show that such an event is even possible, let alone that it happened that way, and wikipedia boldly says (see earlier link for symbiogenesis; between brackets is mine):

"evolutionary theory [sure, skip hypothesis and go straight to marketing and labeling it as a theory triggering or pushing mental buttons regarding the concept of a "scientific theory"]...evidence suggest that mitochondria developed from proteobacteria [stop calling propagandistic arguments and fancy storytelling with persuasive arguments and twisted logic "evidence" please, just because people can get their baseless myths published in so-called "scientific articles"]

Somehow I have a feeling that the average reader of that wikipedia page comes away thinking of the subject as an entirely different type of "theory" than the way the word "theory" is used in the article that is actually honest and not misrepresenting the reality of missing experimental evidence and what kind of "theory" this really is, as in the synonym for:
belief/opinion/feeling/idea (in this case based on nothing more than wishful fantasies and elaborate philosophizing and fantasizing)

Behaviour according to the very same "philosophical belief system" that Shapiro was almost complaining about (or let's say admitting to as an issue for scientific integrity if you read back the full quote and especially the ending he does seem to imply it's an issue). How hypocritical from him again (again as in other evolutionary philosophers behaving in the same manner). For your convenience:

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro

That "philosophical belief system" I do not describe as either "Darwinian evolution" or "Neo-Darwinism" but as philosophical naturalism or collectively as the body of evolutionary philosophies and myths that boil down to the notion that 'Nature did it' (regarding the subjects described so far in this thread, origin of specific biomolecular machines, life, our solar system, the universe and diversification of life from the first living organism or organisms). So Shapiro doesn't get to dodge the bullet by giving his evolutionary philosophies based on the same philosophical naturalism and notion that 'Nature found a way...' another terminology (or distancing himself from it with perhaps implying he's left Neo-Darwinism behind with his newer and improved evolutionary philosophies or that it's not still the same thing as neo-Darwinism except for the slight twist, just like neo-Darwinism is Darwinism with a twist, it remains philosophical naturalism, all proposed scenarios and stories are based on philosophical naturalism which is conflated with "science" as "methodological naturalism" is conflated with "the scientific method": Pantheism in the closet).

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic
Bill Nye never claims to be a 'Doctor' - NEVER. He is "Bill Nye the Science Guy" not Dr. Bill Nye. Customary protocol dictates that honorary degrees do NOT confer the bearer the right to the honorarium 'Doctor'. Bill Nye honors that custom and makes no claim to the title Doctor.

Not that it's the topic of this thread or that I want it derailed by talk about Bill Nye, the mainstream media guy, guru, philosopher and philosophical naturalist and promoter of philosophical naturalism+evolutionary philosophies and selective willful agnosticism (or ignorance, pretending not to know something for certain, or convincing oneself of that cause the possible logical conclusive/factual/correct conclusion is undesired when thinking about it) as "science" (conflating erronuous philosophies involving the core philosophy of 'Nature did it' with the word "science"), but it was Tzarchasm that called him a "Professor".

a reply to: whereislogic

the mainstream media guy, guru, philosopher and philosophical naturalist and promoter of philosophical naturalism+evolutionary philosophies and selective willful agnosticism (or ignorance, pretending not to know something for certain, or convincing oneself of that cause the possible logical conclusive/factual/correct conclusion is undesired when thinking about it)

Sounds like the curriculum for a Ph.D. in Creationism. Guess you have one? If you need a topic for your dissertation, I have one for you: "Why Scrambled Eggs Scramble". You'll spend the rest of your natural life figuring that one out.

a reply to: whereislogic

You need serious help using the English language. Not trying to be mean here, but the propaganda is getting extremely old and you can't articulate a sentence to save your life. Please stop the run on sentences. It is impossible to follow and is the main reason nobody even bothers to argue with you any more. You are propaganda machine, plain and simple. You rely on over talking a subject just to sound smart when in reality you sound like you just learned the English language recently. 1 paragraph is supposed to be 3-5 concise sentences, not one single run on sentence that confuses people because it doesn't even make a point.

You could have just said:

It was Tzarchasm that called Bill Nye a "Professor",

and it would have had the exact same meaning and saved us all the headache of reading your dozen or so tangents in the middle that have nothing to do with your point.