Thursday, September 16, 2010

Catholic Creationism

"Morning's Minion" is shocked — shocked! — to find that such an animal exists and sees it as — sit down for this — "yet another small piece of evidence that on [the] Catholic right, Catholic culture and Catholic sensibility are being overwhelmed by the Americanist-evangelical mindset" — Catholic and Creationist? The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation sees otherwise.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

9 Comments:

Blogger Stephen said...

Would that Morning's Minion decried deviations from Catholic orthodoxy as strongly as he does deviations from secular humanist "progressive" orthodoxy.

Seriously, the guy is a joke.

3:56 AM  
Anonymous Steve said...

I guess I would be considered a secular heretic by Minion and his fellows, and worthy of insult since I, too, jettisoned Darwin as well.

The Kolbe Institute has much to add, even if I don't agree with their Young Earth emphasis. In many ways, much of the presumptions of the Darwinian influenced "natural history" reveals many, and obviously false, metaphysical assumptions.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What "metaphysical assumptions"?

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Steven P. Cornett said...

RE: Anonymous,

Well, how about, for starters, the assumption that all life is essentially the same thing, and, like inanimate objects, can be infinitely shaped and moulded "fall out" into anything. The problem is when they talk about how a species of animal is designed to function in an ecosystem, when the presumptions of Darwinism says every creature just "fell out" that way. Some nature shows that feature creatures from the ancient past do this in a way that the contradiction is glaring; they have to talk about how a creatures features can show what it was and how it lived and how it was suited to where it lived. Because they have to, in essence, "reverse engineer" the creature, you hear that talk of design unmistakably, no matter how much they talk about 'evolution.'

Then you also have the presumption that everything evolves, even non-living things through some process. This leads to the pantheist (even if they call themselves atheist) notion that nothing created everything, such as in the recent statement of Stephen Hawking.

10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Because they have to, in essence, "reverse engineer" the creature, you hear that talk of design unmistakably, no matter how much they talk about 'evolution.'

Are you saying evolution doesn't select for organisms that can cope within their environment?

That's "contradictory?" And a "metaphysical assumption"? ... I don't get it: evolution underpins ecology. They don't contradict each other in the slighest.

Have you ever done anything with genetic algorithms btw? I have. Unlike you I have a fairly complete grasp of how evolution works. Also: I think you're an intellectual flyweight. If you think your objections are so brilliant and well-stated get them published in a journal.

>>Then you also have the presumption that everything evolves, even non-living things through some process.

Um

No

Where the hell are you getting this from?

We can say for example that the biosphere of the Earth is somehow cybernetic and develops to maintain homeorhesis accordingly but because planets very obviously do not replicate we cannot say the Earth "evolves" in a biological sense.

That being said, the basic ideas of evolution have been applied successfully in computer science and engineering (genetic algorithms) and in psychology (see esp. Donald Campbell's BVSR theory and memetics). Economics / game theory and immunology could said to have benefited from evolutionary ideas as well.

2:11 AM  
Anonymous Steven P. Cornett said...

Where the hell are you getting this from?

Try shows on popular natural history on Discovery Channel, for one thing, where they bring the prehistoric past alive.

the basic ideas of evolution have been applied successfully in computer science and engineering (genetic algorithms)

The actual ideas applied are those of adaptational modeling, that is the development of statistical models that adapt to random sequences to converge at an endpoint. They are applied to control (the field of robust control) and communications (pattern recognition in a noisy process, for instance). Genetic algorithms, as the term implies, are a set of heuristics, that is simple, mathematically expressed rules, operating in a modeled process that adaptively responds to an input process, that is a noisy chain of data from sensors of some sort.

The adaptational aspect of genetic algorithms is that activation or deactivation occurs with the operation as the input progresses. There is also learning by the program as input progresses, which is why the algorithm is called adaptive.

Of far greater influence in all those fields you mention is Bayes' Theory, the true core idea of adaptive algorithms and robust control theory. In fact, if you take graduate courses in Electrical Engineering, as I did, you'll find that stochastic process theory, which builds on Bayes' insights, at the core curriculum in the last decade or so.

Memeitics is simply the study of the communication and mutation of ideas, and leave out much of the complexity of signs and interchange of communications by leaving out the context, unlike semiotics, which is the study of signs and tokens of communication in the context of other signs, called "texts" by semioticians.

Umberto Eco, the famous author and semiotician, proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication. There is even the application of semiotics in the natural world as well; this applies to how natural organisms take information and make predictions to adapt to the world around them. One might also make the study of how the natural world communicates to us as well.

It is interesting to note that adaptive processes also play a demographic role in the survival of life. This field, now emerging, is called "epigenetics." Epigenetics is the study of how the way genese are expressed changes without the genetic structure changing.

12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The actual ideas applied are those of adaptational modeling ..."

I object to this for several reasons:

I have never heard of the formal field "adaptational modeling;" Google has not helped me. I think you are blowing smoke up your ass and made up a term on the spot.

Genetic algorithms are stochastic in nature but I'm not sure I would call them "statistical." The "chromosomes" are more in focus than their distribution.

"Genetic algorithms, as the term implies, are a set of heuristics, that is simple, mathematically expressed rules" ..and they are explicitly rooted in evolutionary theory, something you are being dishonest about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm#History

HURR MISSING SOMETHING??

1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"operating in a modeled process that adaptively responds to an input process, that is a noisy chain of data from sensors of some sort."

The data do not have to be noisy in the least, they just have to present a combinatorial challenge. I did GAs with the traveling salesman problem. No noisy data at all. The graph weights were the same every time. It's just that there are n! ways to solve the TSP and I need to cut it down somehow. I used evolution and got good answers. You might even say it was like a tornado plowing through a junkyard and leaving a 747 behind.

You have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

"Of far greater influence in all those fields you mention is Bayes' Theory, the true core idea of adaptive algorithms and robust control theory. In fact, if you take graduate courses in Electrical Engineering, as I did, you'll find that stochastic process theory, which builds on Bayes' insights, at the core curriculum in the last decade or so."

Even if this is true, what does it have to do with the fact that evolution is true and has influenced other fields of science and engineering considerably?

Also: shame on you for trying to throw up a smokescreen by dragging in "semiotics" and "Bayes' theorem" and "epigenetics" where they're completely irrelevant. I'm not as dumb as you look.

http://www.prolifescience.org/images/stories/2008/Bios/2008-cornett.jpg

buhhahahahaha

1:13 PM  
Blogger love the girls said...

Anything coming out of Vox Nova is almost guaranteed to be complete nonsense.

Have you seen Henry Karlson's latest?
http://vox-nova.com/2010/09/18/big-government-for-thee-not-for-me/

His hinge distinction is so appallingly stupid as to be embarrassing.

12:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.