Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: An Argument from C. S. Lewis for Intelligent Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

John G. West writes:

November 29. Perhaps best known for his Chronicles of Narnia and works of Christian apologetics including Mere Christianity, Lewis was a first-rate scholar of medieval and renaissance English literature, and a first-rate mind on many topics.

Photo: C. S. Lewis, by Asar Studios/Alamy (Photo by Hans Wild/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images).

As I discuss in my book The Magician’s Twin, Lewis frequently examined the impact of modern science on human life, including debates over evolution and what has become known as intelligent design.

In the waning days of World War II, Lewis published two little-known essays advancing a positive argument for intelligent design: “Is Theology Poetry?” and “Who Was Right — Dream Lecturer or Real Lecturer?” Both essays were published in 1945, although the first was originally delivered as a talk to the Socratic Society at Oxford University in November 1944. The second essay was later republished under the title “Two Lectures.”

“Universal Evolutionism”

According to Lewis in these essays, “universal evolutionism” has schooled us to think that in nature complicated functional things naturally arise from cruder and less complicated things. Oak trees come from acorns, owls from eggs, and human beings from embryos.

But for Lewis, this “modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion” that defies the actual data of the natural world.

In each of the aforementioned cases, complex living things arose from even more complex living things. Every acorn originally came from an oak tree. Every owl’s egg came from an actual owl. Every human embryo required two full-grown adult human beings.

We see the same pattern in human culture. The “evolution” from coracles to steamships, or from one of the early locomotives (the “Rocket)” to modern train engines, requires a cause that is greater than either steamships or train engines. Wrote Lewis: “We love to notice that the express [train] engine of today is the descendant of the ‘Rocket’; we do not equally remember that the ‘Rocket’ springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself — namely, a man of genius.”

Lewis made clear the relevance of this truth for understanding the wonderful functional complexity we see throughout nature: “You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?”

An Explicit Argument for ID

This is explicitly an argument for intelligent design, and Lewis implies that this line of reasoning was central to his own disavowal of materialism. “On these grounds and others like them one is driven to think that whatever else may be true, the popular scientific cosmology at any rate is certainly not.”

This argument for intelligent design does not in and of itself lead to the Christian God according to Lewis. But it opens the door to considering the alternatives to materialism of “philosophical idealism” and “theism,” and from there Lewis believed that one may well progress to full-blooded Christian theism after further reflection.

Evolution News
Comments
I agree with Aaron1978 regarding PM1's post @29 and also his @27. Excellent depth of philosophical analysis. Yes, CS Lewis made a mistake referring to God as being the most complex because God is not composed of parts which are held together, but instead is the most simple being. From the link posted regarding God's immutability:
God is pure being itself, so he does not change in any way. In creating the world God is the same, the only thing that changes is how we are related to God. The philosopher Peter Geach, who perhaps most powerfully made the argument, calls this a “Cambridge change,” named after the Cambridge University philosophers to whom he was responding. Here’s how it works: suppose a son grows up and ends up becoming taller than his father. This direct change is recognized by the father who says “my son is now taller than me,” but when the same father says “I am now shorter than my son,” he is recognizing a change not directly in himself, but in the difference between him and his son. The same thing happens when we say God created the universe—nothing changes in God’s immutable nature, but the world around us is “changed” by becoming real in an act of being that is created from nothing. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-it-impossible-that-god-created-the-universe
God's creative action does not result in a loss of power by God since it is just a manifestation of His same power. Also, God's creative actions occur all at one eternal moment and are manifested over time.
So just as a lawmaker can stipulate in one decree when a law begins and ends, and the binding power of that law begins and ends based on that one decree, so too God in one eternal decree determines the moments in time when an effect will come into existence and go out of existence, and when that effect comes into or goes out of existence it will be due to the one act of God’s intellect and will. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/god-is-both-immutable-and-active
Silver Asiatic
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
@ 29 Wow, I am genuinely impressed with your response. I agree with what you are saying. My intent was to say if exhibit A was capable at doing this action then logically speaking exhibit B should certainly be able to. I might be assuming incorrectly that JVL is a physicalist. So I was just pulling from a theory that I knew that might help show my point. I really appreciate your response on 29. I honestly do. Thank you.AaronS1978
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
@28
. You limit God based off your logic and therefore something that is immaterial cannot act on the material based on rules you are imposing. Why could it not interact? There are plenty of theories (m-theory) that purpose things like multi dimensional beings that could interact with our universe, and we would know no different, and they would not be considered physical by our standards.
That seems a bit weird to me. Beings from higher dimensions might not be detectable to us, or detectable to us only in ways that are difficult to understand. But God is not like a higher dimensional being -- something that we can conceive of quite exactly, even if we don't know how to imagine or experience. He is genuinely transcendent, absolutely infinite, and transcends all possible comprehension by finite minds. You can't get to the concept of God by starting off the idea of Superman and just making him more and more powerful. That would at most make Superman a god, but there is a massive ontological gulf between gods and God. That's exactly what New Atheists fail to appreciate in their stupid "we just believe in one less god than you do" argument. So I don't think that one can appeal to Flatland or n-dimensional topology to explain how God interacts with the universe. The real question is, why would God need to interact with the universe at all? To imagine God as interacting with the physical universe, one would need to begin with the idea that God and the universe are somehow distinct, because only things that are distinct can interact. But if one begins with the thought that God is an absolutely powerful being, completely unlimited in every possible way, then it becomes perfectly obvious not only that God must exist, but also that only God can exist. Because if anything existed that wasn't God, then the existence of that thing would be a limit on God's power. Which cannot happen, since God is absolutely unlimited. In other words, if we begin with the idea that God is absolutely powerful and completely unlimited in His power, we must accept not only that nothing can exist independent of His willing it to exist, but that strictly speaking, nothing exists that is distinct from God in any way. Everything that has existed, can exist, or will exist is only a specific aspect of God. That would include the entire physical universe.PyrrhoManiac1
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
@ jvl In regards to all of your questions on immutable nature of God https://www.catholic.com/search?q=God%E2%80%99s%20immutable%20nature Also I recommend Edward Fesser and his book the first mover. If you truly want to understand want I think and you aren’t asking questions just for the sake of arguing. Here is is blog http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/ “How does God interact with the physical universe without having some kind of physical or energy manifestation?“ This was addressed back in my last response, this is a problem with your concept of God. You limit God based off your logic and therefore something that is immaterial cannot act on the material based on rules you are imposing. Why could it not interact? There are plenty of theories (m-theory) that purpose things like multi dimensional beings that could interact with our universe, and we would know no different, and they would not be considered physical by our standards. For example, two dimensional being would not know that a three dimensional (us) being is drawing on the paper that it exists on. All the two dimensional being would know and be able to interact with is the new line we put there with the pencil. Anything above our dimension would be considered outside of our universe, and very likely not made of the material of our universe, making it not material, but it would still be able to interact with us. It’s very possible and very conceivable. Why is it that you continue to believe that if it’s immaterial that it is not capable of interacting with any part of your universe? That’s you putting limitations on what I believe and then criticizing it. You are also claiming all things are composed of the substances our universe is composed of. “A . . . being which you cannot measure or detect or test in a lab. When you say ‘has always existed’ does that not mean ‘infinitely far in the past’? Are you not appealing to an infinite argument?“ Well, it depends on how you look at it, if the past did not exist until this being will it so. Secondly, if the universe is organized and not a giant chaotic mess, because of a creator, then there could be an infinite past that we might not be able to observe yet. Unlike the multi-verse, which has an infinite past, that would not be organized, unintelligent, and thus dangerous to itself and us. “Who says the ‘singularity’ was ‘always’ there? When you say ‘always’ are you not saying ‘infinitely far in the past’?” Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, and Sean Carol for starters, but there are many individuals that have said similar and have a myriad of theories about an infinite past.AaronS1978
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
I agree with the theologically sophisticated responses here to Seversky, but I would also say that C. S. Lewis opened himself up to Seversky's criticism by talking about "complication" ("more complicated") in the first place. The problem turns on how the argument from analogy is supposed to work. If the reason why we're supposed to say that the complexity of the device is explained by the complexity of the mind that made it, then we would certainly be open to Seversky's quite reasonable objection. We would not want to reason as follows: 1. Human designed artifacts are complex. 2. The complexity of those artifacts is explained by the complexity of the human mind. 3. Livings things are vastly more complex than human designed artifacts 4. Therefore, the complexity of living things is explained by a vastly more complex kind of mind. This would be a disaster for theology, since it would entail that the Designer is vastly more complex than any human mind. If that were right, then the Designer could not possibly be God, since God is "simple": He has no parts, no internal structure, and therefore cannot be complex in the sense that artifacts and living things are. What we need is a different kind of concept altogether to explain what minds are and the relation between minds and the complexity of the things that can generate. Lewis himself hints at the right idea when he writes "much more perfect and more complicated" about the mind of the inventor. The mind of the inventor is more powerful than the creation, because it has more potency, it can do more different things. A machine can only do what it was designed to do, but a mind can do create all sorts of ideas for machines, plans, intentions, structures, etc. So now we have something more agreeable to theology: 1. Human designed artifacts are complex. 2. The complexity of artifacts is explained by the creative power of the human mind. 3. Living things are vastly more complex than human-built artifacts. 4. Therefore, the complexity of living things is explained by a vastly more powerful creative mind. (The astute reader will notice that I shifted from "complicated" to "complex" here. I don't think anything hangs on that, for the moment.) I still don't think (4) would get us to God, since it would at most get us to a Demiurge. But at least it's not as openly inconsistent with classical theism as the first version is. To understand why God exists, it is sufficient to notice that if we were to begin with the concept of God as an infinitely powerful being and meditate carefully on what that means, it becomes obvious that God must exist and that nothing else can exist apart from God. That's why I'm not an atheist: because I understand that God must exist in a philosophical sense.PyrrhoManiac1
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
AaronS1978: For one you take a hyper literal interpretation of the immutability of god to attempt to make it look absurd. This is a problem with your concept of God and is not shared by the individuals you criticize for it Well, in this context, what does 'immutability' mean? God has an immutable nature, meaning that God’s nature cannot change, that doesn’t mean God cannot act, like you seem to propose. It just means that God’s nature is unchanging, and therefore cannot be created or destroyed much like “energy”. Okay . . . what does it mean to say that something's 'nature' cannot change. What is 'nature' in this context? Second, you assume God is physical, which is another thing that Christians and many other individuals do not believe. Again this is a problem with your interpretation of my belief. How does God interact with the physical universe without having some kind of physical or energy manifestation? You have an intelligent being that has always existed, that creates a universe with intelligent physics, that results in intelligent beings, that can explore the universe and observe it. God has always been there and very likely has been the source of an infinite number of creations A . . . being which you cannot measure or detect or test in a lab. When you say 'has always existed' does that not mean 'infinitely far in the past'? Are you not appealing to an infinite argument? You have a small black unintelligent dot known as a singularity, that always existed, that creates a universe with intelligent physics, that results in intelligent beings that can explore the universe and observe it. It was always there and then all of a sudden it did something for no good reason and we got really really really lucky because this dot is unaware of what it is doing because if it was aware it would be the first choice Who says the 'singularity' was 'always' there? When you say 'always' are you not saying 'infinitely far in the past'? If you think your version of how the universe came into the existence is more logical, well more power to you. But not only do I find it unsatisfying, but I find it relatively implausible. Fair enough. Not much to say then.JVL
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
Probably a waste of time posting this link “Aseity” by Sproul but who knows maybe somebody who is actually interested may take the time to get philosophically educated. He covers a wide range of topics,some of which have been brought up on this thread. He tells the story of his personal interaction with Jastro and Sagan. immutability, being verses becoming ( we are not human beings we are human becomers.) Highly recommend because if you are going to say stupid stuff the only cure for that “ stupid stuff” is to become familiar with why you are saying stupid stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj6mZiRRuUU Vividvividbleau
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
“In other words, every effect must have a cause.Except for your God. Why?” Strawman alert, because God is not an effect. If God is an effect, and every effect must have a cause, God must have a cause, this is true but this is not the classical theistic ( Judaeo Christian) position. To be precise every finite, contingent effect must have a cause, anything that begins to exist must have a cause. God is neither finite, an effect nor has a beginning. I gotta agree with Tammie Lee “If you got an education beyond high school you should to sue your college for leaving you so ignorant” Vividvividbleau
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
@Seversky @1 It may have been a 'reasonable question' when you asked for the first time, or even the second time, after you had first read it your Materialist's List of Snappy One-liners to Stump Theists. It is no longer reasonable when you can hardly still be ignorant that the question has been addressed both here and in thousands of articles and books back to Aristotle, his issues of an unmoved mover, infinite regression, and the like. Now it is stale, and boring, yet is still put like a child who thinks he found a funny riddle to puzzle adults.Belfast
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
@ 18 JVL your response seems to have a similar purpose as the question Sev presented. For one you take a hyper literal interpretation of the immutability of god to attempt to make it look absurd. This is a problem with your concept of God and is not shared by the individuals you criticize for it This commits the same fallacy Sev does with his question which is why it’s not reasonable and harbors no objective truth as you implied. Your version of immutable means unchanging right down to the molecule. This is your concept, and it is not shared by the people you criticize, although you are criticizing those people for how you view their God God has an immutable nature, meaning that God’s nature cannot change, that doesn’t mean God cannot act, like you seem to propose. It just means that God’s nature is unchanging, and therefore cannot be created or destroyed much like “energy”. Second, you assume God is physical, which is another thing that Christians and many other individuals do not believe. Again this is a problem with your interpretation of my belief. It feels that you criticize people on your interpretation of things and really not theirs. Finally in response to why I think my reasoning is at the root cause of reality is because of the fact that the alternative is an infinite regression of stupidity, that results in infinite stupidity, and I’m not being facetious about this Infinity becomes absurd, and if it’s an infinity that is tied to an infinite number of events then anything can happen, and it will happen indefinitely. So universes can infinitely pop into existence. Universes can also infinitely disappear for any reason. These events are guaranteed, but somehow we just don’t observe them. The other reason why I think personally that God is at the root of reality is because of how physics panned out of which I cannot attribute to luck logically So I have two choices Either: You have an intelligent being that has always existed, that creates a universe with intelligent physics, that results in intelligent beings, that can explore the universe and observe it. God has always been there and very likely has been the source of an infinite number of creations Or You have a small black unintelligent dot known as a singularity, that always existed, that creates a universe with intelligent physics, that results in intelligent beings that can explore the universe and observe it. It was always there and then all of a sudden it did something for no good reason and we got really really really lucky because this dot is unaware of what it is doing because if it was aware it would be the first choice So I’m sorry but I am going to pick the first option and I think it’s pretty obvious why If you think your version of how the universe came into the existence is more logical, well more power to you. But not only do I find it unsatisfying, but I find it relatively implausible.AaronS1978
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Seversky at 14, I can picture Seversky standing before God. Go ahead, pick one. "I... uh... thought you didn't exist." "No one showed me any evidence you exist." "Gosh. Can we talk? I mean I don't want to go to that uh... place. You know what I'm saying?" John 3:19 "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil."relatd
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
JVL at 19, Pop culture? You should really try to avoid making assumptions. From the Smithsonian: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-research-redefining-what-we-thought-about-neanderthals-180971918/relatd
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Relatd: Paintings of Neanderthals from the 1950s have shown a change since then. They now look like “modern” humans. So . . . pop culture representations are now part of your scientific argument? I'm really not sure what point you think you are making.JVL
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
AaronS1978: it not a reasonable question, it’s a strawman that purposely misunderstands the concept of God being immutable to create an infinite regression to make the concept of god look preposterous. It is a reasonable question if someone doesn't see the truth of there being an immutable . . . thing. (How can a being be immutable? It never learns or grows or gains insight? Such a being would have no need of worshippers because their worship wouldn't change it. See why we ask questions.) Why do you think it makes sense that there can be a being of some kind that didn't come from something else? Why do you think your concept is at the root of reality instead of something like the Big Bang which also may have no discernible cause.JVL
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
@3 it not a reasonable question, it’s a strawman that purposely misunderstands the concept of God being immutable to create an infinite regression to make the concept of god look preposterous. The same infinite regression happens with the multiverse and determinism creating an absurd chain of cause and effect into infinity.AaronS1978
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Humans are identified by skull shape, but this is downplayed in the literature. Look at European, Asian and African skull shapes. Evolutionists still insist on a process that acquired information from nowhere to upgrade "primitive" humans into "modern" humans. There's no such thing. Some "modern" humans have Neanderthal DNA. Paintings of Neanderthals from the 1950s have shown a change since then. They now look like "modern" humans. I can imagine the following. "Modern" human father: Now boys. I don't wanna see you hangin' out with any of those Neanderthal girls. Apparently, they didn't listen.relatd
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
CD: "was there variation in the acorns, some of which thrived and some of which did not, depending on environmental and climatic conditions?"
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. https://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new/ “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" - (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595 Do Phyletic Lineages Evolve from the Bottom Up or Develop from the Top Down? - Robert F. DeHaan - 1998 Excerpt: The authors concluded: "Most higher taxa were built from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families...the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa."48 and 49,,, 48 D. H. Erwin, J. W. Valentine, and J. J. Sepkowski, "A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic," Evolution 41 (1987): 1177ñ86. 49 Ibid., 1183. Herein lies the origin of the "top-down" and "bottom-up" metaphors. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF12-98DeHaan.html Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter – July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.html Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa - October 22, 2012 Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans' anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the "Out of Africa" expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago. This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-fuller-picture-human-expansion.html Finding links and missing genes: Catalog of large-scale genetic changes around the world - October 1, 2015 Excerpt: "When we analysed the genomes of 2500 people, we were surprised to see over 200 genes that are missing entirely in some people," says Jan Korbel, who led the work at EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany.,,, African genomes harboured a much greater diversity overall. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151001094723.htm etc.. etc.. etc...
bornagain77
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
I don't understand the need to 'worship' anything so nothing it is ...Seversky
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
CD: "we should be worshiping Nothing, rather than God," But I thought Krauss was already trying his damnedest to worship 'nothing', instead of God, as his creator?
Lawrence Krauss and the atheist definition of nothing by Matt Slick | Mar 17, 2012 | Atheism, Secular Issues Dr. Lawrence Krauss is a very well-educated and intelligent man. There is no doubt his prowess in the area of science exceeds my own by an extremely wide margin, and I’ll be the first to admit that physics is certainly not my area of expertise. But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth-seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History, says in his brief review of the book: “Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That’s how a cosmos can be spawned from the void–a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it’s just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.” Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as: no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence. something that is nonexistent. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing. But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned. All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth. So they do their best to spin and redefine the facts to try and placate their worldview. As Dr. Robert Jastrow says, “Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.” Yes, Dr. Lawrence Krauss is a very well-educated and intelligent man. But he doesn’t know anything about nothing. https://carm.org/atheism/lawrence-krauss-and-the-atheist-definition-of-nothing/
bornagain77
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
“Nothing caused God.” In which event we should be worshiping Nothing, rather than God, as the ultimate cause of the universe…….chuckdarwin
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/10
If every effect, whether simple or complex, necessarily entails an even more complex cause then what is the cause of God? The answer is: Nothing caused God. The premise of the question “IF EVERY EFFECT blah blah blah” is false. The very nature of God, almost the very definition of God, is “the Uncaused Cause”
In other words, every effect must have a cause. Except for your God. Why? Because you say so. It's called special pleading.Seversky
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
As a Creationist, I'd like to enlighten our Atheist friends who keep asking, in some variation, this question: If every effect, whether simple or complex, necessarily entails an even more complex cause then what is the cause of God? The answer is: Nothing caused God. The premise of the question "IF EVERY EFFECT blah blah blah" is false. The very nature of God, almost the very definition of God, is "the Uncaused Cause" Even a home schooling high school grad like me knows that this is basic Thomas Aquinas 101 stuff Here's a tip for you Atheist guys who had to ask the question: If you got an education beyond high school you should to sue your college for leaving you so ignorant. Take em to the cleaners.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
BA77 It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement. That's why it's called a truism. Let's put it this way--there are roughly 500 species of Lewis' happy oak trees/shrubs. How do you explain so much variation in one genus? Did God sit down one Monday morning after a lazy sabbath watching football and create each one ex nihilo? Or was there variation in the acorns, some of which thrived and some of which did not, depending on environmental and climatic conditions? Pick your poison............chuckdarwin
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
CS Lewis: "In each of the aforementioned cases, complex living things arose from even more complex living things. Every acorn originally came from an oak tree. Every owl’s egg came from an actual owl. Every human embryo required two full-grown adult human beings." ChuckyD: "This is nothing more than an inane truism. I fail to see what relevance CS Lewis has to modern cosmology or evolutionary biology." So ChuckyD, since you apparently agree with that 'inane truism', then there is no 'hopeful monsters' hypothesis for you? I.e. the hypothesis of one species instantaneously giving birth to a brand new species? i.e. Of Oak trees giving birth to Pine trees? per rational wiki (which is certainly not friendly to ID),,,
Richard Goldschmidt The German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1878–1958) was the first scientist to use the term "hopeful monster". Goldschmidt thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution. In his book The Material Basis of Evolution (1940) he wrote "the change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation." Goldschmidt believed the large changes in evolution were caused by macromutations (large mutations). His ideas about macromutations became known as the hopeful monster hypothesis which is considered a type of saltational evolution.[1] According to Goldschmidt "biologists seem inclined to think that because they have not themselves seen a 'large' mutation, such a thing cannot be possible. But such a mutation need only be an event of the most extraordinary rarity to provide the world with the important material for evolution".[2] Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accumulation of small mutations was important but could only account for variation within species (microevolution) and wasn't a powerful enough source for the origin of evolutionary novelty to explain new species. Instead he believed that big genetic differences between species required profound "macro-mutations" a source for large genetic changes (macroevolution) which once in a while could occur as a "hopeful monster".[3][4] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster
bornagain77
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
In each of the aforementioned cases, complex living things arose from even more complex living things. Every acorn originally came from an oak tree. Every owl’s egg came from an actual owl. Every human embryo required two full-grown adult human beings.
This is nothing more than an inane truism. I fail to see what relevance CS Lewis has to modern cosmology or evolutionary biology. He never really had a coherent view on evolution; I think at best he would be classified as a "theistic evolutionist." But, again, I think that is giving him more credit than due. The notion of "universal evolutionism" may be interesting to a gaggle of classics and humanities mavens, but it is of no use to the biologist or paleontologist.....chuckdarwin
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Dr. Egnor's synopsis of his debate last year with an internet atheist is also relevant.
The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor - Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: We will set aside Scriptural revelation and personal experience (given that atheists like Dillahunty discount these anyway) and consider the ways in which God shows Himself in nature (i.e., the ten ways that God’s existence can be known that I listed during my debate with Dillahunty. Here are three excellent references for the details of these various arguments: Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, (Edward Feser), Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Edward Feser), and Letters to an Atheist (Peter Kreeft). These and other works cover evidence such as Aquinas’ First Way (by change in nature), Aquinas’ Second Way (by cause in nature), Aquinas’ Third Way (by contingent existence), Aquinas’ Fourth Way (by degrees of perfection), and Aquinas’ Fifth Way (by design in nature) as well as the Thomistic argument from existence, the Neoplatonic argument (from the order of things), the Augustinian argument (from abstract objects), the rationalist argument (from the principal of sufficient reason), and the argument for Moral Law (from the reality of objective moral obligation). Each of these proofs of God’s existence is revealed to us through our intellect.,,, Natural science provides massive evidence for His existence as well. The Big Bang — i.e., the creation of the universe from nothing in an immense primordial flash of light — is a remarkable confirmation of the beginning of the book of Genesis. Astrophysicists have discovered dozens of physical forces and properties in the universe that must have very specific values to permit human life — and of course these forces and properties do have exactly the values necessary for our existence (as if Someone rigged physics just for us). The DNA in living things is an actual code — in every meaningful sense like a computer code with letters and words, grammar and phrases, sentences and punctuation. And life forms’ intracellular metabolism is run by an astonishingly intricate and elegant system of biological nanotechnology. So my question to Dillahunty and to other atheists who endorse the Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence is this: What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden? https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/
Also of note, here is a recent Stephen Meyer lecture on "Return of the God Hypothesis",, (Big Bang included)
Stephen C Meyer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApNrqJ8eloY
bornagain77
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
It’s a reasonable question
No, it’s not reasonable. It suggests an infinite progression and anything infinite leads not to just one creator, but to an infinite number of creators. Infinity has consequences which neither side of the debate wants to address. Aside: the term infinite has many different understandings just as material has many understandings. The tendency is to take one understanding and then conflate it with another. Infinite in time does not mean infinite in knowledge/power though one leads to another in a time based existence. To talk of a creator outside of time is reasonable. Especially when an understanding of time is so fluid and relates to changes in positioning of material entities. The creator outside of time just had to somehow create the material entities and let them change, thus creating time. The eternal mystery - Why does anything exist? ——————————
This argument for intelligent design does not in and of itself lead to the Christian God according to Lewis. But it opens the door to considering the alternatives to materialism of “philosophical idealism” and “theism,” and from there Lewis believed that one may well progress to full-blooded Christian theism after further reflection
ID does not point to a specific creator, only a creator. The nature of that creator lies outside of ID.jerry
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing?
bornagain77
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
It's a reasonable question.Seversky
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Sev, Seriously? You are going to trot out the "what caused God" canard? Good grief.Barry Arrington
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply