CLAVDIVS: “Design as a cause is compatible with materialism” — is that so?

_{kairosfocus
April 19, 2016

Atheism, rhetoric, worldview

1}_{Categories
Atheism
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

While I am busy locally, I think it is important to discuss the issue as just headlined here at UD. Let me clip from the “Materialism makes you stupid” thread:

>>27 CLAVDIVSApril 18, 2016 at 7:52 pm

Design as a cause is compatible with materialism.

Where’s the beef?>>

and

>>28 kairosfocusApril 19, 2016 at 5:14 am

C, design is compatible with embodied designers — we are embodied designers. Evolutionary materialism is inescapably self referentially incoherent and irretrievably self-falsifying as a worldview. Whether or no it is dressed up in a lab coat . . . threatening to take the credibility of science down with it in the ruins of its inevitable collapse. And that is some serious beef. KF>>

So, who is right, why? END

Comments

F/N: Over the course of days, IE has used vulgarities several times despite warning that UD is not a street-gutter. He tried to label snipping vulgarities as censorship, then refused to be shown the door. Finally he is pretending that his cluster of behaviours is a non-offense. Comment is a privilege on good behaviour not a right and as I noted I have had to have my attention elsewhere, due to local follytricks -- which he promptly tried to twist into a turnabout, immoral equivalency accusation -- oh you are being vulgar; by trying to impose US slang on a Caribbean term. The disrespect for civility and even the need to behave with a modicum of restraint in a situation where the thread owner is not able to play playground monitor speak volumes. So, game over, for the moment. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PST}

Phinehas: "I suppose you can take whatever satisfaction there is in “winning” the argument with your evo-mat brain. But it still looks to me like you are avoiding the real issue." I am not avoiding anything. I am just trying to stay on topic and within the goal posts. If KF wants to post an OP on the evolution of the brain, I will gladly participate. Assuming he hasn't turfed me for refusing to apologize for a non-offence.Indiana Effigy_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PST}

IE: Evidently, being able to discern truth is no guarantee that one loves truth or feels particularly committed to pursuing truth. I suppose you can take whatever satisfaction there is in "winning" the argument with your evo-mat brain. But it still looks to me like you are avoiding the real issue.Phinehas_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PST}

Phinehas@262: "So, you seem curiously uninterested in any sort of level playing field for evaluating the issue (and it is a real issue) of whether we should expect evo-mat to create the kind of brain we recognize we have. Why is that?" This has nothing to do with a level playing field. It has to do with the assumptions KF uses to conclude his self-referential incoherence. The primary one being the starting point of an evo-mat brain. In short, he argues that if the brain is evo-mat, it must serve survival over "truth". Therefore, any such brain attempting to discern "truth" is necessarliy self-self-referencial because the brain serves survival, not "truth". Therefore, the brain cannot be evo-mat. But since the same brain of his initial assumption can think critically and use abstract reasoning (which obviously benefit survival so are consistent with this assumption) it has the ability to discern "truth". Contrary to not wanting to play on a level playing field, I am trying my best to level it given the flames in KF's logic. If you want to discuss the actual issue of whether our brain developed through evolutionary processes, we can certainly do that but it would be outside the scope of this OP.Indiana Effigy_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST}

IE, you were asked to leave this thread for serial vulgarity after warning. You will receive no further warnings. KF >>>>>>>> Aleta@261: "This seems pretty minor to me. That follytricks meant politics is not obvious, and if I understand correctly, IE’s comment about it was not very serious." Hence the big smiley face. Some people just don't have a sense of humour.Indiana Effigy_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PST}

Aleta: Which says nothing about "good reasons" whatsoever.Phinehas_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

Materialist don't believe that things happened due to "sheer, dumb luck."Aleta_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PST}

Aleta: Of course you have empirical reasons for trusting your rationality! To suggest otherwise would be silly. You've just not got good reasons for trusting evo-mat to get you there, unless you count sheer, dumb luck as a good reason.Phinehas_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST}

IE:
If his conclusion about self referential incoherence of an evo-mat brain is based on the assumption of an evo-mat brain (which must be the pre-condition) he must also accept that our current brain and its capabilities was the result of evo-mat. To do otherwise is to automatically invalidate his conclusion.
Uh. No. So, you seem curiously uninterested in any sort of level playing field for evaluating the issue (and it is a real issue) of whether we should expect evo-mat to create the kind of brain we recognize we have. Why is that?Phinehas_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

This seems pretty minor to me. That follytricks meant politics is not obvious, and if I understand correctly, IE's comment about it was not very serious. My 2 cents.Aleta_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

IE, you are now asked to leave this thread. If you cannot keep a civil keyboard in a case where I have to be away much of the time, you have a problem. As it is I will now have to go back up-thread to clean up. KF PS: For those who do not know the Caribbean, IE has tried to project a culturally foreign reference into a Caribbean setting in order to twist a reference to political shenanigans and trickery into a vulgar reference. This to improperly try to insinuate that I am being hypocritical.kairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST}

KF@246: "IE, you will now apologise for insistence on vulgarity or else leave this discussion." Since I was only pointing out the etymology of the word "Follytricks" I have no intention of apologizing unless you also apologize to everyone for using that vulgar word. If you apologize, so will I. How come I get the feeling that this will not happen. As such, I will simply say good-bye at this point.Indiana Effigy_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST}

re: 253. I see. Since I usually skim your long posts, I didn't notice that the whole post was a quote.Aleta_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PST}

KF,
Every view has to stand on its own merits.
I agree. To expand on this, every view has to stand on its own merits, and not the merits or faults of someone else's view.daveS_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PST}

DS, kindly cf the just above. Cases are cited as illustrative, not as decreeing something to be so on their raw authority. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PST}

Aleta, the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism is distinct from the question of theism. Every view has to stand on its own merits. As there are other possible worldviews, that is necessarily so. In addition the self referential incoherence arises from its own proposed dynamics and the logic of that for arguments and for arguers. As has been pointed out with several advisors. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PST}

KF,
DS, My comments are not organically connected to or rooted in those of RB.
Yes, thankfully not.
The clips cited from various sources are inextricably rooted in the frame of thought of evolutionary materialism in the scientific forms advanced over the past 160 or so years.
Any evomat who finds that Gray and Rosenberg are flatly wrong has the right to disavow those statements and to not be held responsible for them. If you want to show that that person's views are incoherent, you have to deal with that particular person's views, not those of someone else. I suspect that most evomats disagree with Gray, in particular; in that case, your arguments pertaining to him touch only a small subset of them.daveS_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PST}

Aleta, I am not Pearcey. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PST}

kf concludes,
Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality
Wrong, I have both empirical and related philosophical reasons for trusting my rationality (within limits as I have mentioned above.) kf's statement does succinctly state the theist position. However, if theism itself is wrong, then his assertion is not relevant.Aleta_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PST}

F/N: The remarks Pearcey made on Darwin's horrid doubt are also significant:
People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin's famous "horrid doubt" passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." But, of course, Darwin's theory itself was a "conviction of man's mind." So why should it be "at all trustworthy"? Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his "horrid doubt" selectively -- only when considering the case for a Creator. From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his "inward conviction ... that the Universe is not the result of chance." It was in the next sentence that he expressed his "horrid doubt." So the "conviction" he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance. In another passage Darwin admitted, "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man." Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: "But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" That is, can it be trusted when it draws "grand conclusions" about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey's "instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." In short, it was on occasions when Darwin's mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory . . . . Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, "If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones." Thus "to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals ...undermines confidence in the scientific method." Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, "the mind that does science ... is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science." Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality
KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PST}

F/N: Lest it be forgotten in the stream of comments, I again clip Pearcey in Finding Truth:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. "This circle is square" is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity -- which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. [--> Note the logic here, this is an organic result not a tack-on that one may take up or discard at will .. . . oops, freedom to have a will is in the mix too.] But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth -- which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, "If Darwin's theory of natural selection is true,... the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin's theory is true, then it "serves evolutionary success, not truth." In other words, if Darwin's theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar's paradox: "This statement is a lie." If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, "Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive." But that means Crick's own theory is not a "scientific truth." Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. [--> Ex falso quodlibet plus modelling theory, that all models are false but some are useful within a range of validity] Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, "Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth." Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. [--> ex falso quodlibet, and indeed when a falsity is taken as a criterion of truth the contrary truth will fail the test of that assumption, never mind its actual status of accuracy to reality.] To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, "If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? ... Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it." On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, "Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?" His answer is no: "I have to be able to believe ... that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct -- not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so." Hence, "insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining."
That is what needs to be faced. Contrast the above. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PST}

PS: The dynamics I have pointed to: >> a: Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature; from hydrogen to humans by undirected chance and necessity. [–> generally conceded] b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of happenstance initial circumstances. [–> direct implication and import] c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this meat-machine picture. [–> all means all] So, we rapidly arrive at Crick’s claim in his The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as “thoughts,” “reasoning” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies. [–> references to sources, for the argument and a biocybernetic model] d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical [–> physicalism], but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [[“nature”] and psycho-social conditioning [[“nurture”], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds — notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! — is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised “mouth-noises” that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride. (Save, insofar as such “mouth noises” somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [[How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin — i.e by design — tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.]) e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” [–> a commonplace c 1985-6] — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And — as we saw above — would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain? f: For further instance, we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion. [–> cf the New Atheists] Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent “delusion” is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it “must” — by the principles of evolution — somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. [–> consequence of the evolutionary materialist picture] And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism. [–> grand, nigh universal “delusion” would cast a pall over our mindedness] g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around [–> self referentiality], evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too. h: That is, on its own premises [[and following Dawkins in A Devil’s Chaplain, 2004, p. 46], the cause of the belief system of evolutionary materialism, “must” also be reducible to forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity that are sufficiently adaptive to spread this “meme” in populations of jumped- up apes from the savannahs of East Africa scrambling for survival in a Malthusian world of struggle for existence. [–> the incoherence drawn out by way of Dawkins] Reppert brings the underlying point sharply home, in commenting on the “internalised mouth-noise signals riding on the physical cause-effect chain in a cybernetic loop” view:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions. [–> breakdown of rationality as a consequence]
When one undermines the credibility of human thought and results of thought, one is caught in one’s own web.>> I add the Smith model sees a two-tier controller in a cybernetic loop (MIMO loop]. The lower order one is an i/o entity that is in effect a front end processor. A higher order controller serves to interact with that and allows a higher order of action than just playing out the programming of the loop. This allows adaptability, learning, reflexivity with freedom [self-moved initiating causal factor with memory and a sense of identity, the self or soul] purpose etc to be discussed.kairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PST}

DS, My comments are not organically connected to or rooted in those of RB. The clips cited from various sources are inextricably rooted in the frame of thought of evolutionary materialism in the scientific forms advanced over the past 160 or so years. Please mark that distinction. It is not merely oh, I disagree with Darwin, Haldane, Marx, Freud, Skinner et al, Crick, Provine etc including Gray and Rosenberg. The pointhey makeis tht the modern scientific view (in evo mat form) leads to the conclusions they make and the dynamics involved point to that being so, in multiple ways. That is what has to be faced. And as I just noted, I did not simply sit in some corner of a library and dream up some notions, I had to deal with live Marxists, Freudians and the like. Including the implications of agit prop that led to mass confrontations of students with riot police for protests blocking the main axis through which reinforcements would have to come into Kingston, Ja in case of disturbances. And not to mention cultic programming at about the same time. The implied views of human beings pointed to serious and deep concerns. Are we responsibly free and rational, or are we more like computers that can be flushed and reprogrammed almost at will under the skilled hands of practitioners of the dark arts of manipulation. One key lesson I learned was, if we surrender our responsible, rational freedom or do not learn how to exercise it, we are in fact readily and frighteningly manipulable through media and figures we look to for leadership and/or the circumstances imposed on us. Cf here for sobering thoughts from Schein building on Lewin and reflecting on the Chinese Communist takeover: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10006.html Manipulated marches of folly are real, all too real and all too common, Gray got that part right; though the wider context is wrong, fatally wrong. Where also the views in question lead to the spreading concepts that undermine the moral constraints on such ruthless resorts, even among those who do not formally adhere to the underlying schemes of thought. Please ponder the matches we are here playing with. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PST}

IE, you know or have reason to know that I do not have the time I would prefer to give to this discussion and others, due to local events. In a few hours for instance I have a likely contentious sitting to deal with. I will not waste time on silly accusations of lying and equivocation where it is obvious that from 30 years ago I was aware of the multiple ways in which incoherence occurs in evolutionary materialist thought. Through, having to deal with cases and noticing the self referentiality and its consequences if dismissive projections on others were applied to Marxists, Freudians and the like. In terms of Gray (who came up in Pearcey's list), it is quite clear as to what he has said and how it leads to several forms of self referential incoherence. It is also clear -- despite denials and attempts at distancing -- that his thought is organically connected to the evolutionary materialist scheme of thought, as are those of several other examples in this thread. Starting with Darwin himself and his 1881 monkey brain/mind remarks. With Crick a classic example in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis. The underlying dynamics are quite clear and lead to undermining of thought on such premises through undermining responsible freedom, through undermining processing ability per gigo, through failing to account for even the FSCO/I involved in processors and software for them to reliably compute, through confusing the difference between cause-effect binds and ground-consequence insights, through the discrediting of the thinker through finding ways to attribute his thought to brain, psychological, social, etc causal factors irrelevant to logic, truth and validity, and more. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PST}

IE, you will now apologise for insistence on vulgarity or else leave this discussion. And it is not "censorship" to remove vulgarities having warned thot they will not be tolerated. Censorship is prior restraint on publication, thus suppression of reasonable and responsible expression. Addressing willful, insistent trollish misconduct in interests of preventing disruption that prevents serious discussion is not censorship. It is maintaining an atmosphere in which reasonable discussion is possible. You are responsible for the consequences of your behaviour onward. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PST}

KF, with regard to your equivocation and back peddling at 242 and 243, I will let the readers decide who is telling the truth and who is lying. All I know is that I will not lose any sleep over it.Indiana Effigy_{April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PST}

KF censoring@241: "A Montserrat [SNIP: language must not be vulgar]. :) My response to Aleta's question of KF: " What are follytricks" was "A Monserrat [snip -- vulgar] I might add that I added a big happy face. KF@243: "PPPS: For those unfamiliar with Caribbean style word puns, follytricks is politics, as is polytricks. For those completely naive with Caribbean style puns, follytricks is a combination of "folly", "politics" and "tricks". [snip]. Hence my comment about a Monserrat [snip]. {--> And in the Caribbean your north american slang does not apply, tricks as in tricksters does} If KF is going to censor me for vulgarity, he should examine the vulgar etimology of the terms he uses. The pot should really refrain from calling the kettle black. [This is a classic example of projection]Indiana Effigy_{April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PST}

PPS: Given the multiple cases cited from the words of significant evolutionary thinkers starting with Darwin, the wishful thinking in saying the issue only exists in my mind [and that of Haldane, C S Lewis, Plantinga, Craig and Pearcey or Reppert etc] inadvertently reveals the desperation not to face it. PPPS: For those unfamiliar with Caribbean style word puns, follytricks is politics, as is polytricks. The theological significance of Jamaica is Jah mek ya, etc. De I, I-tal, I-man etc have an echo of eye in them, denoting the claim to see clearly beyond the fog of the folk equivalent of Plato's cave. And much more.kairosfocus_{April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PST}

IE, you were already warned that you have a problem with language. You will need to either fix language or leave this thread. KF PS: It seems you have not noticed that Nancy Pearcey is the person who put Gray on the table as an example of evolutionary epistemology and its incoherence; and this was attacked early in the thread. I showed in response that she was right, and indeed that is manifest. The quotes show that directly, for those willing to simply take them seriously in the context of Gray's wider work. It is also to be noted that Gray simply takes his place alongside a much longer list going back to Darwin that shows the consistent problems of self referential incoherence attaching to evolutionary materialism. Notice, I have always pointed out that there are multiple ways the incoherence emerges, and multiple illustrative cases. Notice how I spoke to Marxism, Behaviourism and Freudianism 30 years past as relevant illustrative cases -- this was noticed empirically before it was laid out as a component of an analysis. The attempt to brush aside and dismiss such cases above (and on rather flimsy grounds), is inadvertently telling on their actual force. Okay, podcast of local issues is now finished, so end of split focus.kairosfocus_{April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PST}

Aleta: "What are follytricks?" A Montserrat [SNIP: language must not be vulgar]. :)Indiana Effigy_{April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PST}

1 2 3 … 9 Next