Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

All Sciences Lead to Darwinism, the Mother of Materialism

arroba Email

Science has gone mad. Or, so it seems.

The materialist urge seems to be so great that every branch of science now appears to be lurching toward the Darwinian paradigm, which, as I indicate in the title of this OP, is, basically, the “mother of materialism”!

Here’s why I say this.

We’ve just finished (or, are beginning, or, something) with Chaitin’s search for “evolving software”. He wants to prove the Darwinian paradigm true by building a software that can maintain its evolving ways. In the course of doing this, he reaches the conclusion that mathematics is “more biological than biology itself, which merely contains extremely large finite complexity” (and not the “infinite” complexity the software program requires).

So, mathematics is more “biological than biology itself”. And evolutionary psychology can explain why we do the things we do (or, so they tell us).

And, now, the coup de grace, comes for the field of physics. I just finished reading a paper by Alan Guth, the inventor, if you will, of the theory of inflation. In a 2000/1 paper on “eternal inflation”—which leads directly to “multiverses” and such (he calls them “pocket universes” in his paper), we’re treated to this third, and final “implication of eternal inflation”:

I would argue that once one accepts eternal inflation as a logical possibility, then there is no contest in comparing an eternally inflating version of inflation with any theory that is not eternal.

Immediately follows the best part:

Consider the analogy of going into the woods and finding some rare species of rabbit that has never before been seen. You could either assume that the rabbit was created by a unique cosmic event involving the improbable collision of a huge number of molecules, or you could assume that the rabbit was the result of the normal process of rabbit reproduction, even though there are no viable candidates for the rabbit’s parents. I think we would all consider the latter possibility to be far more plausible. Once we become convinced that universes can eternally reproduce, then the situation becomes very similar, and the same logic should apply. It seems far more plausible that our universe was the result of universe reproduction than that it was created by a unique cosmic event.

Somehow, no matter the starting point, all of science tends towards Darwinism. It is as if once you accept materialism as being the only acceptable worldview, then only infinite replications can explain reality. And damn be Occham’s Razor!!

Darwinism: the materialist perspective that has spawn so many children.

(All of this is merely an observation I’m making that I thought would interest those of us who support ID. Others need not comment.)

Eugene S: Couldn't agree with you more. This seems, sadly, exactly where we're headed. To me, it looks like we're witnessing the downfall of science, just as we've already seen the downfall of rationalism. PaV
I've always wondered about the space (not necessarily "outer space", but the term as used to describe a volume of an area or container) into which the universe could expand. If nothing (in the most true sense... i.e. a computer programmer references a non-existent variable in his work) existed prior to the universe, what provided the volume of space available for the expansion? Is "nothing" (or maybe less confusing "the space into which the universe expands") not a true nothing (nonexistent), rather more like a computer variable defined with a "null" state? One whose base type is of a sort that is infinitely scalable? In which case, as the universe expands, the information stored in the variable is simply updated? Maybe like a cloud storage system, in which case as various thresholds are crossed, the storage system must scale its capacity to prevent a boundary condition from terminating the expansion. ciphertext
OT: edited previous video:
Privileged Planet Principle - Scot Pollock (Notes In Description) - video http://vimeo.com/31904755
Materialism can be defined as "the worldview that gets smart people to believe in dumb things." Or, "the worldview that gets people who should know better, to believe in things that shouldn't/couldn't happen." It leaves them no other option once they have chosen to be it's disciples. tjguy
"It seems far more plausible that our universe was the result of universe reproduction than that it was created by a unique cosmic event." Right! We know from EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATION that rabbits do not pop out of thin air. All rabbits are born from other rabbits. If you go back far enough you arrive at the Uncaused First Cause. Universes reproducing themselves for eternity? Right! Science? Wrong! Evolutionist fairy tale! tjguy
"I take all of this to be a sign of corruption within science" Absolutely. It violates Occam's Razor. Some scientists treat it rather inaccurately today, saying, "Ok, it is only a heuristic". If this continues, one day they will end up saying everything rests on a big turtle that no one can see but we sort of know it exists. Eugene S
It was this comment that startled me:
It seems far more plausible that our universe was the result of universe reproduction than that it was created by a unique cosmic event.
Here you have physicists trying to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe (in the end, that's what inflation theory is fighting), and there's the invocation of a replicative scheme as a 'legitimate' means of explanation, with our world, apparently, ending up as being the most "fit". I take all of this to be a sign of corruption within science. CY, @ 3.1.1, hints at this corruption, wherein, that which is undetectable and unprovable is invoked as a "scientific" explanation. ID posits that the hallmarks of design are detectable, and from what one then sees, one can infer an intelligent designer; but here, that which lies beyond our means of detecting is posited as a basis of explaining what one sees. PaV
OT: This teaching pastor is fairly fun to watch and has a new apologetic video out: Earth 1 http://vimeo.com/31712314 bornagain77
In further critique of Guth's 'rapid inflation' assumption, Dr. Sheldon further notes here:
One of cosmic inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory - April 2011 Excerpt: Inflation adds a whole bunch of really unlikely metaphysical assumptions — a new force field that has a never-before-observed particle called the “inflaton”, an expansion faster than the speed of light, an interaction with gravity waves which are themselves only inferred– just so that it can explain the unlikely contingency of a finely-tuned big bang. But instead of these extra assumptions becoming more-and-more supported, the trend went the opposite direction, with more-and-more fine-tuning of the inflation assumptions until they look as fine-tuned as Big Bang theories. At some point, we have “begged the question”. Frankly, the moment we add an additional free variable, I think we have already begged the question. In a Bayesean comparison of theories, extra variables reduce the information content of the theory, (by the so-called Ockham factor), so these inflation theories are less, not more, explanatory than the theory they are supposed to replace. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/cosmology/cosmology-one-of-cosmic-inflation-theory%E2%80%99s-creators-now-questions-own-theory/
As well CY, it is worth noting that the 'rapid inflation', from which his conjectures are born, as Dr. Sheldon has pointed out, is fraught with difficulties. In fact his last article he cited this:
Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno - Robert Sheldon - November 2011 Excerpt: 'In fact, on Lakatos' analysis, both StringTheory and Inflation are clearly "degenerate science programs".' http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/08/sean_carroll_channels_giordano_bruno.thtml
BA, I think it's also significant that according to Guth's "eternal inflation" there's the possibility (or probability) of infinite expansion, but that it implies; even if there are other universes, one cannot extrapolate an infinite past; that somewhere there must be a beginning. CannuckianYankee
Here is a video of Alan Guth,,,
Did Our Universe have a Beginning? (Alan Guth) - video http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Did-Our-Universe-have-a-Beginning-Alan-Guth-/856
,,,Where towards the very end of the video, after considering some fairly exotic materialistic scenarios of 'eternal inflation' of 'pocket universes', Alan Guth concedes that "The ultimate theory for the origin of the universe is still very much up for grabs". bornagain77
The infinite inflation/multiverse theory necessarily (eventually) produces a god that has power over all universes. All roads lead to god, even the materialist road. William J Murray
"In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from." – Alan Guth https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/cosmology-hawking-replaces-god-with-hocus-pocus/ I think Guth has had a change of heart/mind perhaps because of Hawking's (and others') foray into the illogical. "You can't get anything from nothing" seems to be the rationale that will always keep us sane. Having worked with mentally ill people for many years (and I'm not suggesting that Hawking is), the broader perspective on what makes them ill is the belief that there is something there other than what IS there. It also seems to be a method of thought that allows for all kinds of conspiracy theories. The atheists I think realize this with their insistence on empiricism. However, they take a huge detour when it comes to the (nonexistent) foundations for their worldview. Atheism is thus based ultimately on nothing; and they think God is a delusion? CannuckianYankee
BA77: Indeed, if Guth has changed his mind, then he is certainly an open-minded scientist, and is to be applauded. I think my main point holds, nevertheless, since there are other well-known scientists who have gone in the direction of "multiverses". But thanks for the update. P.S. On another post, I suggested I had my own views on cosmology, and the unification of QM and GR. You asked about it. I did notice the request, but, frankly, I can't do anything about it publicly. I'm still scratching my head. We'll see what happens. PaV
It seems Guth's view may have changed since that 2000/1 paper
Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 "The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - from pg. 35 'New Proofs for the Existence of God' by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: A elegant thought experiment of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.) How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin Out Of Context - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos#p/u/1/-aemfYmusSY Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
I'll add that Guth himself has speculated on the possibility, given various assumptions, that a reasonably advanced civilization could create a universe in the laboratory. Not in the sense of a simulated world, but an 'actual universe'. Given what I read, Guth seems to lead towards that view. Which would mean, if Guth really does entertain that view, that on his thoughts Intelligent Design becomes a live candidate under his view. nullasalus
You could either assume that the rabbit was created by a unique cosmic event involving the improbable collision of a huge number of molecules, or you could assume that the rabbit was the result of the normal process of rabbit reproduction, even though there are no viable candidates for the rabbit’s parents. First, that doesn't exactly exhaust the spread of possibilities. Second, the funny thing is - if you start playing around with eternity and infinity enough, then the 'improbable collision of a huge number of molecules' becomes a certainty. It may or may not be more likely than an alternative, but it's no longer ruled out. Nor is a designer being responsible for the rabbit. nullasalus

Leave a Reply