Excerpt from: “There is a God, How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”

_{Eric Hedin

December 23, 2022

Atheism, Intelligent Design}

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

Anthony Flew writes:

I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this Universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.

Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.

When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

The leaders of science over the last hundred years, along with some of today’s most influential scientists, have built a philosophically compelling vision of a rational universe that sprang from a divine Mind. As it happens, this is the particular view of the world that I now find to be the soundest philosophical explanation….
Anthony Flew, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” (New York: Harper One, 2007).

The evidence that convinced “the world’s most notorious atheist” that God’s creative activity gave rise to the universe and life is the same evidence that Uncommon Descent has repeatedly presented from ongoing research findings across the scientific disciplines. What more could be said?

Comments

Alan Fox: The science community largely ignores ID and gets on with its work. By "science community" I'm going to assume you mean evolutionary biologists and OOL reseachers. Not impressed. Well, thankfully a free people can ignore their biased, idiotic productions. More holes than cheese. P.S. I understand why you ignored my last reply to you.ram_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

And whereas Darwinian atheism has been worse than useless as a scientific theory, (and catastrophically bad as a political ideology), Intelligent Design in general, and Judeo-Christian theism in particular, on the other hand, far from having 'nothing useful' to offer science, (as Alan Fox tried to claim), has been very fruitful for science. In fact, you simply can't even 'do science' in the first place without presupposing Intelligent Design to be true at some deep level. All of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
,, from the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. In fact, assuming methodological naturalism, instead of Intelligent Design, as the supposed 'ground rule' for doing science, (as Judge Jones falsely claimed in the Dover trial), drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, - Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. 2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Christians – Not the Enlightenment – Invented Modern Science – Chuck Colson – Oct. 2016 Excerpt: Rodney Stark's,,, book, "For the Glory of God,,,, In Stark's words, "Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science." Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy. That's because Christianity depicted God as a "rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being" who created a universe with a "rational, lawful, stable" structure. These beliefs uniquely led to "faith in the possibility of science." So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, "the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack of faith." Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I've mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as "liberators" of the human mind and spirit. Well, it's up to us to set the record straight, and Stark's book is a great place to start. And I think it's time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/chuck-colson/weve-been-lied-christians-not-enlightenment-invented-modern-science “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” – Francis Bacon - father of the scientific method Matthew 7: 15-17 Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.…
bornagain77_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

In fact, in so far as the pseudo-scientific claims of Darwinian evolution have been taken seriously by the scientific community at large, Darwinian claims have stifled scientific research (junk DNA), has led to widespread medical malpractice (vestigial organs), and has even, (via Eugenics), led to widespread sterilization and death.
Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions – Casey Luskin – November 10, 2015 (Part 4) Excerpt: Just Kidding — We Anticipated Function! When ENCODE’s findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place new ones alongside the old.,,, Thus, while it’s true that, (through the years leading up to ENCODE), some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/post-encode_pos100771.html Oct. 2021 – Here is a short history of how the fallacious Junk DNA argument came about from Darwinian thinking. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heres-a-lay-friendly-explanation-of-the-critical-role-junk-dna-plays-in-mammalian-development/#comment-738837 Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches – July 20, 2012 Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the “vestigial organs” argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim’s original list, and each of those is questionable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/vestigial_organ062281.html Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/ The Origins of Eugenics Learn about Francis Galton and the beginnings of eugenics, or “race science,” and consider the relationship between science and society. – August 4, 2015 Excerpt: Francis Galton, an English mathematician and Charles Darwin’s cousin, offered an attractive solution to those who believed that these groups posed a threat. Galton decided that natural selection does not work in human societies the way it does in nature, because people interfere with the process. As a result, the fittest do not always survive. So he set out to consciously “improve the race.” He coined the word eugenics to describe efforts at “race betterment.” https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/origins-eugenics Nat Racial Science Introduction From 1933 to 1945, Nazi Germany carried out a campaign to “cleanse” German society of individuals viewed as biological threats to the nation’s “health.” Enlisting the help of physicians and medically trained geneticists, psychiatrists, and anthropologists, the Nazis developed racial health policies that began with the mass sterilization of “genetically diseased” persons and ended with the near annihilation of European Jewry. With the patina of legitimacy provided by “racial” science experts, the Nazi regime carried out a program of approximately 400,000 forced sterilizations and over 275,000 euthanasia deaths that found its most radical manifestation in the death of millions of “racial” enemies in the Holocaust. This campaign was based in part on ideas about public health and genetic “fitness” that had grown out of the inclination of many late nineteenth century scientists and intellectuals to apply the Darwinian concepts of evolution to the problems of human society. These ideas became known as eugenics and found a receptive audience in countries as varied as Brazil, France, Great Britain, and the United States. But in Germany, in the traumatic aftermath of World War I and the subsequent economic upheavals of the twenties, eugenic ideas found a more virulent expression when combined with the Nazi worldview that espoused both German racial superiority and militaristic ultranationalism.,, https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/nazi-racial-science
Moreover, in so far as Darwinian pseudo-scientific claims have influenced world politics at large, the influence of Darwinian ideology on human societies at large has been nothing less than catastrophically bad.
The Theory of Evolution and 20th century Totalitarian Regimes - Paul Gosselin (May - 2021) Excerpt: But as Chirot analyses Nazi and Communist ideologies, he is not shy about pointing out the contribution of the Evolutionary origins myth to these ideologies (1994: 412): "The presence and widespread acceptance of utopian theories of society that demand perfection, and believe that it is possible to obtain it, are also a good predictor of tyranny. Most of the twentieth-century's tyrannical ideologies, beginning with Europe's, have been based on popularized science and a misplaced faith that it was possible to engineer the ideal society. But it was not just a matter of idealism carried to excess. The specific content of these theories, their neo-Darwinian belief that history consists of struggles to the death between competing classes or races, was necessary in order to transform them into such deadly instruments of tyranny." And as we continue reading Chirot gets a bit more specific about how Evolutionism contributes to totalitarian ideologies (1994: 413): "Yet, for all the bloodshed in the past, most of it due to the famine and disease that resulted from wars, there are no cases of deliberate mass slaughter for ideological reasons on the scale of what the twentieth century has witnessed. A neo-Darwinian sense of history as a struggle to the death has spread well beyond those intellectuals who think of themselves as being in the Western scientific tradition. The idea that various categories of people races, classes, ethnicities, religions are the equivalent of species of organisms fighting for survival, and therefore justified in taking the most extreme measures, has become widespread. Thus, even though it adopts the position that it is only reviving an old tradition, the fundamentalist version of Islam, when it achieves power, is a type of modern utopian totalitarianism." So the key evolutionary contribution to Nazi and Communist ideologies were the concepts of “Fight for Survival” and “Survival of the Fittest”. Writing shortly after World War II Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist), underscored an issue about Nazism that many Western elites would prefer left swept under the carpet (1947: 27-28): "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution... To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy... The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood... Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution." http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/sc_po/EvolutionandTotalitarianRegimes_PG.htm Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
bornagain77_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Without reference, AF claims, "The science community largely ignores ID and gets on with its work. That’s not the fault of the scientific community. ID has nothing useful to offer them." Says the man who ceaselessly promotes a pseudo-scientific theory that has been worse than useless as a heuristic, and/or guiding principle, in science and medicine. (a theory, I might add, which has also had horrific consequences for human societies in general in the 20th century). Science, real science, not the myth-making, 'just-so story' telling, science of Darwinian evolution,,
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
,,, Science, real science, not the myth-making, 'just-so story' telling, science of Darwinian evolution, owes absolutely nothing to Darwinian evolution.
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." - Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 "When we look at Darwin's actual theory, we find that the history of biology and medicine owes practically nothing to Darwin's theory. First of all, most of the major disciplines in biology were founded by people, pioneers, scientists, who lived before Darwin. They never even heard of his theory. This is true of anatomy and physiology, botany and zoology, comparative anatomy, embryology, and the field Darwinists now like to claim as their own, the study of fossils. That field was founded before Darwin by someone who was a creationist. The field of genetics was founded by Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk. Actually he was contemporaneous with Darwin, but he rejected Darwin's theory. He saw his theory of genetics as an alternative to it, (to Darwin's theory). So these major disciplines in biology and medicine owe nothing to Darwin. In medicine itself we look at the great triumphs of medicine in the modern world. One of them would be,,, small pox.,, Small pox has bee eradicated, and this began with the work of Edward Jenner before Darwin was born. He found that by immunizing people with cow pox, a milder disease, he could prevent the spread of small pox. And now, today, there is no small pox in the world except for in laboratory cultures. So one of the greatest triumphs of modern medicine owes absolutely nothing to Darwin's theory. You can go down the list. One thing we are often told is you can't understand bacterial antibiotic resistance with our Darwinian evolution. The fact of the matter is however, the great pioneers in this field, that is the discoverers of, say, penicillin and streptomycin, had no use for Darwin's theory. Ernst Chain, who won a prize for purifying penicillin, specifically criticized Darwin's theory. So did Selman Waksman who discovered streptomycin. In the modern management of antibiotic resistance in hospitals, physicians do not consult the "Origin of Species". They isolate patients,, so the bacteria doesn't spread, and try multiple approaches to eliminating the infection. And they search for new drugs using design. Intelligence.,, So antibiotic resistance, which is often touted as the greatest triumph of Darwinian medicine, actually owes nothing to Darwinism at all. So when it comes to the evidence, and the fruitfulness of Darwinian theory, the theory is, to say the least, greatly overblown." - Jonathan Wells - Science owes nothing to Darwinism – video - 4:24 mark https://youtu.be/EfWb8BaXoRc?t=264
Even Jerry Coyne himself honestly admitted that Darwin's theory has been practically useless as a guiding principle, and/or heuristic, in science,
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” - Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).
And just in case you think that Jerry Coyne was just having a bad day when he dissed Darwin's theory in the preceding article, elsewhere Coyne honestly admitted that, "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.",,,
"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture. The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior.",, - Jerry Coyne http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200004/0012.html
Darwin's theory, (as Coyne himself, in a moment of rare honestly, conceded), simply fails to qualify as a hard and testable science.
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
bornagain77_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Ram SETI spends millions of dollars a year looking for coded information. What if SETI received a 4 letter based code, and after analysis observed it matched the human genome? Would they accept that it was designed at that point?es58_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Jerry writes:
Aside: The really interesting issue is why this isn’t known and why the science community continually lies about ID.
The science community largely ignores ID and gets on with its work. That's not the fault of the scientific community. ID has nothing useful to offer them.Alan Fox_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox: Can anyone who understands “Design” give us a clue as how to detect it? SETI spends millions of dollars a year looking for coded information. We have a fantastical example of it right here under our noses in the DNA/ribosome (etc) replicator. Not to mention the sophisticated systems going on within cells built upon high levels of functional complexity that depend on the replicator system. Nobody can prove beyond all possibility this is a designed system. But I feel sorry for the OOL researchers who are irrationally committed to an anti-design philosophy and spout all sorts of silly, misleading, and unsupported conjectures and wishful thinkings, instead of being open minded and accepting of what the evidence is really saying at this point. The deck is seriously stacked against them. I feel sorry for them. I really really do. Okay, not really.ram_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

"According to Dawkins the appearance of design is overpowering" this is the clever slight of hand. They use the term design themselves without rigorously defining it or how it's detected, then proceed to declare by fiat what is "real" design and what is only "apparent design. Free ride.es58_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

You still don't get it? I'm surprised. A little comparison to explain the lying. Evolution: Nothing made you. ID: An intelligence made you. So, what happens with people who hear that "an intelligence made you"? Nothing? Of course not. They name the designer - it's God. And then the fun starts. Atheists are running for the hills. They keep hearing "God made me" over and over and where do they get this from? Science. ID is science and NOW people start telling their kids, ministers start preaching it from the pulpit... Isn't it obvious? There's a big revival of religion. Atheists, meanwhile, have nowhere to hide. Their BELIEF in evolution has been shattered. A few might - maybe - even start thinking that the "science" they love is pointing to God. But that's bad. REALLY BAD. Because instead of living their lives however they want, they realize that God is real and they are responsible for their actions. They are actually responsible. And they HATE the idea of GUILT. Hate it. They want to do whatever guilt free, but that train has just been stopped on its tracks. Get it?relatd_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Over the years there have been dozens if not hundreds of anti ID people here making inane remarks. None but one has contributed anything positive, especially the current hyper skeptics whose main MO is to make sarcastic remarks about ID. I have been gathering some past comments and came across this one from 18 months ago.
ID is not really a theory. It is a set of conclusions about how the world works. On a physical level that includes physics, chemistry and most of biology. The four basic laws of physics operate in these areas and explain nearly all findings but there definitely appears some obvious exceptions. ID agrees with 99.9999% of the conclusions of science but concludes that a small percentage of findings are best explained by the intervention of an intelligence. So it takes the same information every science department has but comes to different conclusions on a very small number of findings because of where the data logically points. If anything it’s conclusions are getting better substantiation with nearly every study done. I can’t think of any study ever done which contradicts its conclusions and plenty which supports it. People criticize ID for not having a science program but in fact every science project in the world is support for ID. So justification of ID gets stronger all the time.
So the basic takeaway from this comment is that there isn't one science study in history that contradicts ID. Aside: The really interesting issue is why this isn’t known and why the science community continually lies about ID.jerry_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

I prefer not to apply a label to myself. I just go with the flow. And at present, the flow is not going with an all-knowing, all-loving god.Sir Giles_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

@54
I do want to clarify something. I am not an atheist. I have pointed this out numerous times, but it falls on deaf ears. One unfortunate thing about evangelical Christians is that they are talkers, not listeners. Simply look at the disproportionate amount of ink spilled in these comments by your Christian brothers and sisters. Like Flew, I subscribe to deism. The difference between me and Flew is that it didn’t take me 80+ years to get there nor did I feel the need to bare my soul to the world on the matter.
There's something quite admirable about deism. I consider myself a Spinozist at heart (with liberal dollops of other influences), which is quite close to deism. You might be interested in The Scientific Spirit of American Humanism. The first few pages are all about Thomas Paine's deism and how it influenced 20th century religious and secular humanism.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

The second fatal problem for Darwinian atheists in their claim that the Design, i.e. the 'purposeful arrangement of parts', that we 'overwhelmingly' see in biology, is only an 'illusion of design', is that for there to even be an 'illusion of design' in the first place then there necessarily has to be 'real' design in the universe somewhere, or else there is simply nothing 'real' for the 'illusion of design' to be an illusion of. Yet, Darwinian atheists deny that there is any 'real' design anywhere in the universe. For the Darwinian atheist, there is simply no 'real' design to be found anywhere in the universe for the 'illusion of design' to be compared to. There is simply nothing 'real' for the 'illusion of design' we see in biology to an 'illusion' of. Some may say, "but hey, we know for a fact that the artifacts produced by men, (computers, i-phones, cars, airplanes etc.. etc..), are 'real' design" and that they are not merely the 'illusion of design'. But alas, for Darwinian atheists, and via their denial of free will, men do not really design anything, but the laws of physics do. So thus, even the artifacts produced by men are to be considered merely an 'illusion of design'. As Granville Sewell noted, "to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone,, could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into encyclopedias and science texts and computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones."
From Barren Planet to Civilization — Four Simple Steps - Granville Sewell - July 27, 2017 Excerpt: I make the simple point that to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone (the gravitational, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces) could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into encyclopedias and science texts and computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/from-barren-planet-to-civilization-four-simple-steps/
Shoot, for Darwinian. atheists, you don't even write your own sentences but the laws of physics do. As Paul Nelson explains, according to Atheistic Naturalism, "You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact."
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, Nonetheless, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
Thus, even the design that humans produce, and sentences we write, are not 'real design', but are, according to Darwinian metaphysics, only an 'illusion of design' produced by the laws of physics. To go further, in the following article Behe explains the only way in which we can ascertain that another intelligent mind has been at work is precisely by the 'purposeful arrangement of parts'. Specifically he states , "we can recognize that a mind has acted by perceiving a purposeful arrangement of parts. There is no other way that I can think of by which we can recognize another mind."
Recognizing Design by a “Purposeful Arrangement of Parts” - Michael Behe - June 10, 2021 Excerpt: Minds and Purpose So how do we perceive the work of a mind? As I’ve written in my books (most extensively in Darwin Devolves), minds (and only minds) can have purposes. Thus, to the extent it can manipulate things, a mind can arrange parts to achieve its purposes. Of course, we ourselves have minds. And it is a fundamental power of mind that it can discern purposes. Thus we can recognize that a mind has acted by perceiving a purposeful arrangement of parts. There is no other way that I can think of by which we can recognize another mind. For purposes of detecting other minds, “parts” can be virtually anything. Examples include: the purposeful arrangement of sounds in speech; words and letters in writing; mechanical parts in machinery; the timing of events in a surprise party; combinations of all those things; and an infinite number of other ways. There are many other things to say to fill this out,,, Nonetheless, the overriding point is that we can only recognize design/mind in the purposeful arrangement of parts.,,, Finally, in the case of the eye, rather than “specified complexity,” I think it is much, much easier to parse design for a lay audience (or a professional one) as a purposeful arrangement of parts. Audiences will immediately recognize the purpose in the arrangement of the eye’s components. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/excerpt-from-there-is-a-god-how-the-worlds-most-notorious-atheist-changed-his-mind/#comment-772654
Yet again, and to reiterate, an intelligent mind producing 'real design'. i.e,. the 'purposeful arrangement of parts', can simply find no purchase within the Atheistic Naturalism of Darwinists. As Michael Egnor explains, "It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts."
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
So thus in summary, as Darwinists themselves have honestly admitted, we intuitively recognize the 'illusion of design' in biology simply by the 'purposeful arrangement of parts'. Yet 'teleological purpose' in our thoughts, and in nature, can find no purchase within the metaphysics of Atheistic Naturalism. i.e. There simply is no 'real design' for the 'illusion of design' in biology to be an illusion of. "Real design' simply does not exist anywhere in nature for the Darwinian atheist. In short, the Darwinian atheist is, once again, found to be in catastrophic epistemological failure in regards to his worldview ever giving him a coherent, and sane, explanation for the supposed 'illusion of design' that he himself readily admits 'overwhelmingly' seeing in biology. Verse:
Romans 1:19-23 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
bornagain77_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

AF: "Can anyone who understands “Design” give us a clue as how to detect it? And how we decide something is “designed” without asking how the event or process took/is taking place and at whose or what’s instigation?" According Dawkins himself, we intuitively recognize design simply by looking at an object and recognizing the 'purposeful arrangement of parts'.
"Life reeks of design! But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Richard Dawkins, who is perhaps the most well known Darwinist in our time, and in one of his books, (The Blind Watchmaker), he starts out on page 1 by proclaiming, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." So according to Dawkins that is the very definition of Biology. i.e. The study of things that appear to have been designed. He, of course, does not think that they were designed. He's a Darwinist and he thinks Darwinian processes are responsible, but why does he even think they look designed? He doesn't think they were signed, why does he think they look designed? Is it for some aesthetic reason? Is it because baby seals are so cute? Or rainbows are so pretty? No, for Dawkins it is not an aesthetic judgment it is an engineering judgment. He (Dawkins) writes (on page 21), "We may say a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose.,, Any engineer can recognize can recognize an object has been designed just be looking at the structure of the object." What's he (Dawkins) saying? He's saying the purposeful arrangement of parts is how we recognize design,,, According to Dawkins the appearance of design is overpowering. He writes "Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker; impress us with the illusion of design and planning." – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY
Dawkins is hardly the only Darwinian atheist to be 'overwhelmingly' impressed with the 'illusion of design' in biology.
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now." Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1988) living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" - Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978) “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.... Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” - George Gaylord Simpson - “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” - 1947 “The real core of Darwinism … is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the ‘design’ of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention.” - Ernst Mayr - Foreword in Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982) https://www.discovery.org/a/defining-theistic-evolution/#10 Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, ,,, Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full
Elsewhere Dawkins states,
4:30 minute mark: “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,, So where (does this appearance of design) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins – From a Frog to a Prince – video https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267
There are two fatal problems with the Darwinian atheist's claim that the Design, i.e. the 'purposeful arrangement of parts', that we overwhelmingly see in biology is only an 'illusion' of design, An 'illusion' that is produced by the 'designer substitute' of natural selection. Number 1, natural selection is found to be grossly inadequate in its role as the supposed 'designer substitute':
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. ,,, While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution.,,, Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. ,,, When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence for natural selection 'designing' anything,
“The Third Way” – James Shapiro, Denis Noble, etc.. etc..,,, Excerpt: “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.” http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ “There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection…” – Michael Lynch, “The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes,” Nature Rev. Gen., 8:803-13, (October, 2007)
bornagain77_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

if at any point scientists were to establish a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis...
Whilst there are many hypotheses about how life got started on Earth, none are yet testable. Evidence is required to strengthen a hypothesis into a theory. That evidence is unlikely to be found on Earth but space exploration may hold some surprises.
...can we ascertain if it is or is not a result of design.
Can anyone who understands "Design" give us a clue as how to detect it? And how we decide something is "designed" without asking how the event or process took/is taking place and at whose or what's instigation? Jerry? Anyone?Alan Fox_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

if at any point scientists were to establish a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis, can we ascertain if it is or is not a result of design.es58_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

It would not be a problem for ID either.
As nothing else is a problem for ID. It predicts nothing, explains nothing.
If you believe it does pose a problem for ID, then you don’t understand ID.
Whilst I freely admit I don't understand ID, I can see why nothing is a problem for ID.
ID just points out that the so called science (OOL and natural Evolution) that people use to mock ID is actually nonsense.
Trying to be charitable here, I can't see that ID achieves even that.Alan Fox_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

it would not be a problem for my view if at any point scientists were to establish a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis.
It would not be a problem for ID either. If you believe it does pose a problem for ID, then you don’t understand ID. ID just points out that the so called science (OOL and natural Evolution) that people use to mock ID is actually nonsense. If they find a way to do it, ID wouldn’t be affected. ID endorses every legitimate science finding/conclusion there is. Nearly every university in the world practices bogus science but ID doesn’t. How ironic is that. Remember ID is science+ Let’s go Finches! jerry_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

PM1/53 I think Flew likely felt that if he simply made the jump from atheism to deism without paying lip service to "the science" he'd be even more pilloried than he was. Afterall, he was 81 (I believe) when he first disclosed, and I think it was part pretext to give him cover and avoid the hassle. My 2 cents.....chuckdarwin_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 53, So, you're one of the science faithful. The first life just poofed into existence. But, nonsense you say. ScIeNcE will figure it out and well, ... maybe ... one day... And so on. While you're thinking about that, remember - The Universe just poofed into existence too.relatd_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

CD at 54, So, all those Christians here don't listen. Really? You think I reply to anything you write by not reading it first? Second, I think what you mean by listening might actually translate as "YOU - meaning anybody - are not agreeing with me." In everyday life, how does deism differ from atheism?relatd_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Caspian/43 I don't expect for you to answer my "objection;" it was addressed to Querius. I do want to clarify something. I am not an atheist. I have pointed this out numerous times, but it falls on deaf ears. One unfortunate thing about evangelical Christians is that they are talkers, not listeners. Simply look at the disproportionate amount of ink spilled in these comments by your Christian brothers and sisters. Like Flew, I subscribe to deism. The difference between me and Flew is that it didn't take me 80+ years to get there nor did I feel the need to bare my soul to the world on the matter. "Happily, ever after" is a myth that we tell children. If that and "God is love" comprises your view of God, I would suggest that your theology doesn't run very deep.....chuckdarwin_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Here's the thing that I can't quite wrap my head around: why did Flew need evidence before accepting a deistic God? Spinoza's argument for the existence of God is wholly a priori -- it follows logically from the definition of substance (that which can be conceived of through itself) and of God (as an absolutely powerful being). Once we understand the initial axioms and definitions, it follows as a matter of logic that God must exist. One rather nice advantage of being a Spinozist (as I consider myself) is that it would not be a problem for my view if at any point scientists were to establish a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Relatd: As a working editor, manuscripts written in British English have words and turns of phrase that are obvious, and which would translate poorly or incorrectly to someone not raised in the Queen’s English.
This is true. I just finished a two year stint on a working group that was revising an ISO standard. An inordinate amount of our time was spent ensuring that the words and phrases we used could be properly translated into the other languages.Sir Giles_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Relatd: So, guessing what someone might be thinking is rewriting history a bit.
Yet KF does this all the time in his responses to those who don’t bow to his proclamations.Sir Giles_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

@22 If I recall correctly, the difference between skyhooks and cranes is just the difference between unexplained explainers and explained explainers. A skyhook is a deus ex machina*, whereas a crane is an explained explainer. Dennett's general method is, "wherever possible, turn skyhooks into cranes" -- or, don't allow for unexplained explainers to the greatest extent possible. We probably have no choice but to allow the laws of physics to be "skyhooks", because we have no way of conducting any measurements beyond the confines of our universe. Since we don't know how to do that, we can't confirm any hypothesis about the origin the universe and hence of its laws. Without that, we have no way of explaining where the laws of fundamental physics come from, or why the laws of physics are the way that they are. So I would say that treating the laws of physics as skyhooks is the best we can do, with our current understanding of the limits of scientific methods. * In ancient Greek tragedies, the actor playing the god was lowered onto the stage from a crane or in Latin, machina. But the audience didn't see how the crane actually worked, so they were able to pretend that the god was descending from Mt. Olympus.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

F/N: Newton, General Scholium to Principia:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all [--> sets aside pantheism and panentheism]; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is [--> definition of God and his domain:] a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. [--> identity issues] God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes and sets him in a Biblical, Creation context]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily [--> necessary being]; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God, also implies God is framework to the world, one doubts possible world speak would have been well studied then.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure [--> issues of necessary being, not made up from detachable parts], and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. [General Scholium to Principia, paragraphs added. Notice what he thought about discourse on God and Natural Philosophy.]
Food for thought. KFkairosfocus_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

CD, argument includes reasoning, evidence, assumptions, etc. This, would be strong background for a philosophical thinker such as Flew. So, the attempted contrast you make in 32 fails. In addition, we separately know that he specifically pointed to the growing weight of evidence in the cosmos and in the world of life that points to intelligently directed configuration. KFkairosfocus_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

CD, 25: There is a substantial issue at 24, which -- maybe, predictably -- you have ducked. Such evasiveness and associated subtexts of ideology pushing rather than actual engagement are an implicit admission of defeat on the merits while clinging to what is flawed . . . often, for agenda driven reasons. KFkairosfocus_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Sev, ideology is okay; so long as, you don't impose it on others. Including, while dressed in a lab or a doctor's coat. See the problem now? The issue as always is duty to truth, right reason, warrant etc. Hence, the issue of worldviews and analysis on comparative difficulties, especially bearing in mind the tricky nature of self referentiality. KF PS, I draw attention, for pivotal record, to Dallas Willard:
To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . . Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20] In any area of human activity, knowledge brings certain advantages. Special considerations aside, knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves ~~assured~~ [--> warranted, credible] truth, and truth in our representations and beliefs is very like accuracy in the sighting mechanism on a gun. If the mechanism is accurately aligned—is “true,” it enables those who use it with care to hit an intended target. [p. 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]
So, note especially: [k]nowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. The pivotal issue is warrant and your attention is drawn to 24.kairosfocus_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply