Competing Worldviews Only?

_{Barry Arrington
March 22, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill, who appears frequently in the comments sections of our posts, makes the following comment to my previous post:

Teleology must exist in any functional relationship, including those in biology. The question is not “is there teleology in biology”; no less an authority on evolutionary biology than the late Ernst Mayr (not to mention Franciso Ayala) emphatically stated “yes”! The real question (and the real focus of the dispute between EBers and IDers) is the answer to the question, “where does the teleology manifest in biology come from”? EBers such as Ernst Mayr assert that it is an emergent property of natural selection, whereas IDers assert that it comes from an “intelligent designer”. It has never been clear to me how one would distinguish between these two assertions, at least insofar as they can be empirically tested. Rather, the choice of one or the other seems to me to be a choice between competing metaphysical world views, which are not empirically verifiable by definition.

Is Allen correct?

Comments

To nullasullus: let me add one more thing. You said: "Why should I pretend lunacy is reasonable? Because the guy who had zero problem saying “everyone who believes in God is just projecting” thinks doing otherwise is impolite?" ----- Pretending lunacy is unreasonable is not impolite, but fairly accurate, I'd say. So we don't disagree on that. The impolite bit is the constant allusion that someone who doesn't accept all the same axioms you do is irrational and a lunatic. I sense that you are offended by me expressing my understanding of what God is. I did not intend to offend you and you don't have to be offended - it is just a different view held by a different person. I have come to that view after observing this life and reality for over half a century and to me it seems to be the most straighforward (but not the only possible) explanation of religious belief. Am I entitled to that, or not? Your riposte that I am in denial is understandable, and I don't take offense. It is one logical consequence from your axioms, after all. The only issue I would have is your claim that I am in conscious denial. Let me assure you that my denial is entirely unconcious, just as I believe your projection is entirely unconscious. It is just who we are, shaped by all the factors I alluded to earlier. Peace, fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

faded_glory, Saying "Something can come from nothing, sure. But only in this situation, only the once, and only for this." isn't "logic". It's you just whipping out rules as you see fit - no better than "Sure, sometimes animals pop into existence uncaused. But only small, flightless birds. And only before 37000BC." In fact, creationists (and I'm not one) are vastly more reasonable in comparison. And there's great humor on someone lauding empiricism while insisting something can pop into existence uncaused - one of the few things that cannot ever be recorded by sense experience. Why did I bring it up as relevant? Because you suggested that a lack of universal agreement was proof that these questions have no certain and knowable answers. That some people can disagree with a claim and be flat-out wrong (and we can know this), you seem to have trouble believing. Perhaps you think it's a fact that there are no facts. But hey, what's it matter? According to your standards, being a loon is downright impossible. No one's ever nuts - they merely operate according to different axioms. And science and reason can get along fine with the claim that sometimes things pop into existence utterly uncaused. Because you say so. Or perhaps it is an axiom of yours.nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Allen wrote: The entire universe and everything in it is closed, once and forever, and there will never be anything “new”; indeed, there can’t be
It is reasonable to hypothesize from physical principles alone that the universe (as in the observable universe goverened by laws we recognize) does not constitute all of relevant reality. It is very reasonble that a system outside the observable universe is not bound by the laws governing the universe. In fact, it could be argued, if the Universe is subject to being described by one gigantic Quantum Wave function, something outside the observable universe must be initiating the Quantum Field or causing the Wave function collapse. That was an inference by Tipler and Barrow. Thus something outside material reality could be a necessary part of creating material reality. That was echoed in Richard Conn Henry's letter published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature 2005. He put it even more boldly:
The universe is mental, spiritual.
Even the notion of "time" had to be created at somepoint by something not bound by time. To assert that the observable universe is everything is Saganism (as in Carl Sagan). It is an assertion, not necessarily supported by physics. One must be careful not to equate all of reality with the observable universe. We can infer that there are unobservable entitities affecting the material realms. Such is the science of Quantum Cryptography where we detect the action of Intelligent Eavesdroppers whom we might not directly see. By way of extension of ideas in Quantum Cryptography, it is reasonable to say, the existence of the physical universe is evidence that the Universal Wave Function's behavior regresses to some Intelligent Agency. I've suggested that the Intelligent Agency causing the universe may be the same Agency that created life, but that is a circumstantial claim, not a formal one.scordova_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

To avoid confusion, my previous post was addressed to nulasullus, not to scordova. I'd also like to add that I do think minds exist, but not as 'things'. I see mind as a process, maybe a bit analog to traffic. Traffic exists by the grace of vehicles making up the traffic, not by itself as an independent entity. If there are no vehicles on the road, there is no traffic. Likewise, if there is no material substrate, there is no mind. Does this view make me a lunatic? fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

You are painting with too broad a brush. Saying that at T=0 causality breaks down does not imply that at T>0 causality is optional. Do you see that logic? I actually don't think it is, at least not for the macro world. So no, I don't think that organisms can pop out of nothing. I'm not a creationsist you know ;) With regards tot the reality out there, that too is an axiom, and hopefully one we don't disagree on - do we? If not, why bring it up as relevant? What you consider skepticism is simply good old-fashioned empiricism. A philosophy that can't prove itself, I hasten to add (before you do :) ). So, another axiom. See where this goes? We share a number of axioms, but not all of them. Our differences stem from this. Not from one of us being a loon. Just as Allen claimed. fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

There can be an empirical line of investigation relatively free of world view. Independent of whether God is the Intelligent Designer we can empirically and theoretically argue whether Natural Selection in the wild can mimic the designing activities of an engineer. To the question whether Natural Selection can create large-scale function, I think the answer is a resounding NO, but some are still unconvinced. Peer reviewed papers to that effect a getting through. High time. Can we say something corresponds to engineering designs? Yes, that is scientifically valid. An example from the IEEE: Live Memory of the Cell and Basic Gene Grammars There might be designs which most assuredly will fly in the face of a materialistic world-view, but can be detectable scientifically. Such designs are those being discovered by ENCODE, and if we begin to find such patterns when looking at all species in biotic realms, what will we say then. Sternberg has already identified SINEs between mice and rats not easily consistent with mainstream views. But they are empirically observable patterns. It's been suggested at UD that not only are the patterns observable, they may well be exploitable by biotechnology and medical science. We won't be able to exploit such patterns if we remain in denial that they even exist in the first place! That is why the ID paradigm might lead to scientific advancement versus a world view that insists that DNA is uninformative junk. DNA could be a rich rosetta stone waiting to be decoded for all sorts of engineering applications. Already we have the field of bio-mimetics, but ID could take that to levels we have not seen yet. I think it is perfectly legitimate to try, and UD is here to encourage people that want to participate in this grand exploration.scordova_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

faded_glory, You say that "science works", but you seem unaware (or unconcerned) that science and rational discourse are underwritten by certain axioms - and you're demonstrating that you consider those axioms utterly optional. Something can come from nothing. Causality is optional. Hell, it may not exist at all. You want to have solipsist-level skepticism on the one hand, and on the other hand talk about the authority of science. It ain't working. What's more, you talk about how we can "test against the reality out there". Are you aware that whether there is or isn't an "out there" (a material world) has itself been extensively debated? That some argue against the very existence of minds? Lots of people can question things (say, that 2+2=4) but that doesn't give me reason to doubt certain things (say, that 2+2=4). Sometimes, people are just behaving nuts. As for my tone, I will note that VJTorley is tremendously polite. I try to be, but I have my limits. If someone insists to me that minds don't exist, or the universe is carried on the back of an infinite number of turtles, or that it's reasonable to think things can pop into existence utterly uncaused, I don't feel the need to go "Oh my. That's a very interesting perspective, and I respect that." Why should I pretend lunacy is reasonable? Because the guy who had zero problem saying "everyone who believes in God is just projecting" thinks doing otherwise is impolite?nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

bornagain, The worldviews are not competing, they are co-existing. This is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about exploring the space of human thought and interpretations of the reality we live in. Fascinating stuff, the tricky bit is to accept that others can have a very different outlook than ourselves, and not be too bothered about that. Exploration often yields a richer harvest than conquest. fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

nullasullus, I don't expect you to be convinced. Allen is right, this is a fruitless exchange of views that will not meet because we start from fundamentally diferent principles - axioms, if you like. The relevant philosophy, which I am somewhat familiar with, has been debated for millenia to no avail, no consensus has been reached. This is again because it is about axioms, unprovable starting points, and not about empirical conclusions that we can test against the reality out there. Feel free to think you have the answers. I am convinced you don't, because as long as your axiom is unproven, your answers that follow from it are equally unproven. The only things we can probably agree on are the findings of empirical investigation. Science, if you like. Because science works independently of which of these axioms one holds. Which, I think, gets us back to the OP and Allens views, which I wholeheartedly agree with. And the snarkiness seems really hard to drop. Why? Do I threaten you? Are you unsure of your own views? Take a leaf out of vjtorley's book, it is possible to debate these things without chest beating, you know. fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Faded_Glory, You seem to be making the mistake of thinking "I, Faded Glory, don't know. Therefore, nobody knows!" Somehow, I'm not convinced. I suggest you actually read up on the relevant philosophy, because it's not as if I just made up this talk of causation for yucks. And Hume would say that no, you can't even think of an example of *temporal* cause an effect, because you never actually witness causes - only regularities, and for all you know occassionalism is true. Walk down that road if you like - just realize you've abandoned reason, science, and quite possibly any knowledge of an external world in the process. Walk it alone, though, because there's no fruitful conversation to be had with someone embracing those views.nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Though I am far from being as eloquent of tongue and pen as MacNeill, my view of "competing worldviews" though straightforward and rather crude, has served me extremely well in discerning truth from fiction in these origins debates. In fact my resolve to adhere to my particular "crude" worldview has only strengthened in the hindsight of the trickery I've had to deal with from the materialist/atheist camp. My worldview is this: The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of Darkness http://connect.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=d3ed58c750e09c44daa3bornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Back at 111, Stephen wrote, "I mean precisely what I said. Evolutionary biologists invariably find a way to deny causality and they do it whenever and wherever it suits them. That denial may come in the form of assuming that universes can come from out of nowhere, or that mind can come from matter, or that life can come from non-life, or a number of other illogical notions. You asked for an example, so I provided the one that was handy." Hmmm. I see. Then that takes me back to a previous point: I don't believe you can show me an example of an evolutionary biologist stating that either life or mind arose uncaused. Also, I'm curious what else you include in this list. Your phrase "whenever it suits them" makes me think that you consider the denial of causality quite common. Or does the universe, life, and mind exhaust the list? In particular, I'm curious whether you include evolutionary events like amphibians arising from fish or humans arising from pre-hominids as events where causality is denied? As for quantum events, that is a different matter. I don't think it is an "abandonment of reason" to consider that perhaps quantum events are not caused: it may very well be that the concepts of cause just doesn't apply there. There have been other instance in the history of science where things that people thought were a simple matter of reason and logic turned out to be wrong: there is no guarantee that the logical ideas we have developed based on our experience of the world might turn out to be wrong as we learn more about the world, and there is certainly no guarantee that those ideas would apply to whatever metaphysical world that lies "beyond" our universe. Later, at 114, you write, "With regard to quantum events, remember that unpredictablity does not equal non-causality. Also, keep in mind that if you take the position that causality may not apply in every case or even in every arena, you are practicing selective causality, which is tantamount to a denial of causality. If causality can come and go, or be and not be, it certainly cannot qualify as a law." First, I understand that unpredicatbility does not equal non-causality. The epistimological question of whether there is an uncaused nature in quantum events or whether we just can't know the cause is an open question, and possibly (probably?) an unanswerable one. As to your comment about selective causality, I agree with faded glory in 115. Many laws in science get expanded as we learn more. This is not an arbitrary decision that leads to a slippery slope of anything goes. So having questions about the nature of causality of quantum events does not overturn the principle, which I agree with, that in the world, at the macroscopic, non-quantum level, all events have causes.Aleta_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

The real question (and the real focus of the dispute between EBers and IDers) is the answer to the question, “where does the teleology manifest in biology come from”?
The majority of teleology cannot come from natural selection. That has been demonstrated in evolutionary literature time and again (and that's why the non-Selectionist school of Masotoshi Nei, NAS member, has persisted). That is why Pagels discovered speciation is mostly independent of selection, and that is why Jukes, King, and Kimura deduce most of molecular evolution (and therefore the evolution of molecular machines) are not subject to selection. A fair empirical characterization is that the functionality is engineered by something resembling an intelligent being. Shapiro has gone so far as to argue the Intelligent Designer are the cells themselves (not a bad position). Others like Biologist John Jo McFadden argue that Future events affect the past to create functionality. He argued as much in his book Quantum Evolution but I think his Quantum theories are too optimistic. So if one wants to avoid the designer, but still give a fair characterization, they could say, the exact mechanism is not formally known, perhaps unknowable, but this unknown agency acts like an intelligent agency, like an engineer with capabilities beyond anything we know. Isn't that a reasonble, scientifically correct characterization. It is far more scientifically credible than saying Natural Selection acting on Random Variation creates the appearance of function. This being refuted on empirical and theoretical grounds in the mainstream. As far as hypothetical entities, I had one professor promote the notion of Dark Matter, another who rejected it altogether. They both can't be right. But it seems fair to me to postulate the existence of things not yet discovered. Dirac inferred the existence anti-Matter 13 years before it was discovered. It may be we infer the existence of God before we actually meet Him one day. That seems scientifically reasonable to me, and even to Dawkins:
the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. Richard Dawkins
scordova_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Hey Sal can you help me find the peer reviewed papers explaining the evolutionary origin of this motor that was necessary for the first life. I figure hey, evolutionists don't have the origin of simplest cell explained but maybe they have this machine that was necessary for the first cell explained: The ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4 Electron transport and ATP synthesis during photosynthesis - Illustration http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.figgrp.1672 Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.htmlbornagain77_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

‘Is there a guiding hand in the evolution of the functional adaptations of living organisms?’ is outside the legitimate domain of the empirical sciences?”
The direct answer may be outside empirical science but a circumstantial, forensic investigation is well-within empirical science. If we had to make inferences about intelligent acts based only on direct observation rather than forensic evidences, we would not be able to land reasonable convictions of individuals guilty of crime. And with respect to empirical science, one does not have to presume that the Intelligent Designer is even real:
The crucial question for science is whether design helps us understand the world, and especially the biological world, better than we do now when we systematically eschew teleological notions from our scientific theorizing. Thus, a scientist may view design and its appeal to a designer as simply a fruitful device for understanding the world, not attaching any significance to questions such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true or whether the designer actually exists. Philosophers of science would call this a constructive empiricist approach to design. Scientists in the business of manufacturing theoretical entities like quarks, strings, and cold dark matter could therefore view the designer as just one more theoretical entity to be added to the list. I follow here Ludwig Wittgenstein, who wrote, "What a Copernicus or a Darwin really achieved was not the discovery of a true theory but of a fertile new point of view." If design cannot be made into a fertile new point of view that inspires exciting new areas of scientific investigation, then it deserves to wither and die. Yet before that happens, it deserves a fair chance to succeed. Bill Dembski, No Free Lunch Introduction
scordova_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

nullasullus, I do listen but I don't accept the claim that a cause doesn't have to precede its effect. To me that temporal relation is inherent in the concept of cause and effect, and I can't think of a single example of a known cause and effect where this would not be the case. The case for positing that the beginning of the Universe is an exception is just as strong or weak as the case for positing that the Law of Causality breaks down at T=0. Bottom line is, nobody knows. It's all in the interpretation of the data. Just like our respective notions of God. Snarkiness won't help much. fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Faded_Glory, First of all, you and Allen keep making this particular claim: That the law of causality, by necessity, presupposes that any cause must temporally precede effect - and therefore, when applied to the universe, the argument is that there was a moment of time before the first moment of time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is not what is being argued. Being causally prior is not the same as being temporally prior - similar to how an essentially ordered series and an accidentally ordered series differ from each other, and yet they both describe an ordered series. Allen seems to think that the word "cause" (or even "beginning") absolutely means temporality is involved. I've tried to correct Allen on this. StephenB has tried. Vjtorley has tried. Allen's response has been to quote Wittgenstein, and say he'll not discuss the issue further. More than once. That alone is comedy. Sometimes, a disagreement is not due to differing worldviews. Sometimes it's due to one guy not freaking listening. Re: God, you think God is a projection. Great. Someone else thinks God is universally recognized to exist, and all supposed atheists are merely in conscious denial or rebellion. You can come to amazing conclusions when you start psychoanalyzing people en masse.nullasalus_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

"And so, upright biped “wins” by natural selection, rather than force of argument or logic. Interesting…" That was, uh, the force of your words, was it not? Allen, you had 118 comments worth of chance to address the obvious issues which your own words raised. You did nothing, and still haven't. But since you've temporarily abandoned your 100 comment rule, please go ahead and address the two premises you spent 11,000 words and 33 paragraphs laying out - or tell me why one does not relate to the other.Upright BiPed_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Thank you, faded Glory, for reiterating the point that I made in comment #47. Once again, we have returned to restating positions (i.e. "worldviews") we have clearly laid out previously, without agreement or resolution. stephenB will clearly not concede on this (or any other) point, so it is literally pointless to continue pointing out that the whole point of causality points to an a priori assumption of the "forward" passage of time. So, what is the point of continuing to point out this point? Get the point? I would, however, assume that stephenB would agree with this version of the argument:
"In our experience every event (effect) is determined by a cause. That cause is in its turn determined by another cause. But we cannot assume an infinite series of causes, because an infinite series with no beginning involves a contradiction. And even if we did suppose the possibility of an infinite series, that would not explain how causation began. Hence there must be an uncaused Cause, the ultimate Cause of all the events which proceed from it. This ultimate and supreme Cause we call God." [emphasis added; Laux, J. Catholic Apologetics: God, Christianity, and the Church (A Course in Religion) Tan Books & Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, ISBN #0895553945
Notice that this statement of the Catholic worldview necessarily includes a reference to the "forward" flow of time (that was the point to the emphasis added, above). But what if there is an irreconcilable discontinuity in the "forward" flow of time at the "beginning" of the universe? In other words, the statement from Fr. Laux's high school text that I quoted above is a statement of a particular worldview, which is at variance with the worldview that I referenced in comment #47. A particularly concise summary of this worldview was stated by Stephen Hawking. When asked what preceded the "big bang", Hawking replied:
"Nothing. Asking what preceded the "big bang" is like asking what lies north of the North Pole".[Quoted from the Richard & Judy Show, BBC television, October, 2005]
Now, of course, a person taking stephenB's metaphysical position (i.e. worldview) could say that, since Hawking has "violated" the "law" of causality, then anything at all could lie north of the North Pole: potato chips, unmatched socks, Judge Crater...the list is quite literally endless. However, for the sake of parsimony, it is useful (although not strictly metaphysically valid) to stick with Hawking's assertion and say "nothing". And so, once again, I have restated Wittgenstein's Thesis 1.7. Continuing to endlessly reiterate statements of competing worldviews in this fashion seems to me to be quite literally pointless, if not a symptom of insanity (see http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html ), and so this time I really am moving on. Bye!Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

nullasullus, I reminded myself of what Richard Dawkins said about God being a scientific hypothesis and found this quote: '...the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.' I disagree with this. For one reason, why would the universe be completely different with a God or without? Can't God create a Universe that looks exactly as if he hadn't created it? The other problem here is that Dawkins doesn't give a definition of God. In fact that is an all too common problem with people who use the word 'God'. I think there are as many definitions of 'God' as there are people walking the Earth. 'God' is a projection of our individual uncertainties, doubts and fears onto the Universal canvas. Each person fills in this projection with detail derived from their own nature, and their exposure to the culture, background, education and life experiences they find themselves in. And yes, I do realise that my own concept of God is also just that :) fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

And so, upright biped "wins" by natural selection, rather than force of argument or logic. Interesting...Allen_MacNeill_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

The problem with applying the Law of Causality to the beginning of the Universe is that a cause precedes its effect. There is no 'before' the beginning of the Universe, since time itself began with it, so there isn't anything that precedes the beginning of the Universe. Trying to apply the LoC to that event takes it outside its realm of validity. We are time-bound creatures, and not equipped to think or talk about time-less scenarios. Attempting to do so anyway invariably leads to fatal category errors and language that sounds nice but lacks actual underlying meaning. fGfaded_Glory_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Aleta, I notice that you did attempt to answer the question on causality at 103, however, your decisive three paragraphs appear to come down on both sides of the issue. With regard to quantum events, remember that unpredictablity does not equal non-causality. Also, keep in mind that if you take the position that causality may not apply in every case or even in every arena, you are practicing selective causality, which is tantamount to a denial of causality. If causality can come and go, or be and not be, it certainly cannot qualify as a law.StephenB_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

With the passing of Allen McNeil from any further examination on the issue, I think I will stand with PAV. That is, unrefuted. And since my conclusion was very obviously based directly upon Allen's own comments, he should have immediate access to any dummheit he wishes.Upright BiPed_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

----Allen: "According to nullasalus and stephenB, the origin of the universe is part of the modern theory of evolutionary biology." According to StephenB [nullasalus is more than capable of dealing with that strawman without my help], it is a perfectly valid exercise to ask an evolutionary biologist if he believes that causality is non-negotiable and that one good way to put that idea to the test is to ask him if he thinks universes can come from out of nowhere. If they deny causality where causality is obvious, or claim that the question is unanswerable, then they will certainly deny it on more subtle issues, such as in quantum events---and they do. In keeping with that point, all evolutionary biologists that I know of, think quantum events are uncaused, that mind comes from matter, and that life comes from non-life. In other words, they thrive on their denial of causality at every stage of existence. ---"As the existence of the universe is a prerequisite for everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen, it is necessarily a part of everything, right? So, if one needs to explain why my son lost one the games of tic-tac-toe he played with me back in 2003, it would be absolutely necessary to ground one’s explanation in the current theory of the origin of the universe, according to the metaphysical position of nullasalus and stephenB." Reread my above paragraph.StephenB_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

---Aleta: "Since the origin of the universe is not a subject of modern evolutionary biology, and since your sentence seemed to say that that modern evolutionary biologists abandon causality, I assumed you meant in regards to evolutionary biology." I mean precisely what I said. Evolutionary biologists invariably find a way to deny causality and they do it whenever and wherever it suits them. That denial may come in the form of assuming that universes can come from out of nowhere, or that mind can come from matter, or that life can come from non-life, or a number of other illogical notions. You asked for an example, so I provided the one that was handy. I could just as easily show you examples from other threads where, among other things, Darwinists insist that quantum events are uncaused. They know instinctively that if they conform their minds to the rules of right reason and honor the law of causality, the evidence would point them in the direction of design, and they would prefer not to make that journey. So, they abandon the vehicle that would take them there, namely reason. Incidently, the corollary to the law of causality is that there can be nothing in the effect that is not present in the cause in some way. You cannot, for example, get beauty in a musical composition that has not first been conceived in the mind of the composer. By the way, I haven't heard from you yet on the subject under discussion. Do you believe that something can come from nothing or that something can begin to exist without a cause, or is there some reason why you do not care to weigh in on that question?StephenB_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Not that his 40 postings would have given any indication.Charlie_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Whew, Allen almost made it out of here by the magic #100. If he hadn't one might suspect, by that alone, that he was in love with his own writing.Charlie_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

I see that I was wrong, Upright, but I don't know why you were rude in correcting me?Aleta_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Furthermore, and to be as precise as I can be at this point, I do not now assert that the universe came into existence either with or without being caused to do so. Rather, it seems to me (given what we know about the origin of the universe) that we do not know what caused it to come into existence, if indeed Something did. It is, in other words, one of a large (and apparently growing) collection of "open" questions, which is currently unanswerable. The origin of life is another such question, and like the origin of the universe, it seems possible to me that we may never be able to obtain direct empirical evidence that would unambiguously answer the question of how these events happened. Ergo, we can either stop asking any questions, for fear of asking one for which we cannot obtain answers, or we can go on asking questions and trying to find answers, and leave those "open questions" that we cannot currently answer for posterity to address (and good luck to them). And yes, one could argue that doing so makes me an "agnostic" (to use Huxley's definition of that often abused term). So, I am an "agnostic" on the question of the "original cause" of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Therefore, going forward I will address my comments to questions about a universe that already manifestly exists, and to the evolutionary dynamics of living systems, which also already manifestly exist, and to the causes for all of those phenomena which have proceeded from those two "originating events", and leave discussions about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth to those who take pleasure in discussing issues about which I currently have no empirical evidence either way. In other words, with respect to those things about which I cannot speak, I must remain silent. ...but didn't I already write something like that, along about comment #59 (albeit it in German and quoted from someone else)? Having looped back to an earlier part of this debate, it seems to me that there isn't really any point in hashing over the same points again, and so I will take my leave from this thread. My thanks to one and all for a fascinating and enlightening exchange of views. I'm sure we will meet again, and it may very well be that I might take a somewhat different position on some of these issues. That has already happened in the course of this thread, especially as the result of some friendly suggestions by vjtorley, to whom I am very grateful. And so, until next time, Beannachd leibh!Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply