Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Gil Dodgen
August 15, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Which claims in the ID versus Darwinism/materialism debate are extraordinary?

ID asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life (thoroughly documented by astrophysicists in increasingly excruciating detail), the origin of living systems from non-living matter, and the evolution of a single cell into humans capable of inventing science, technology, art and philosophy, are best explained by design. Design is a straightforward conclusion that screams at most people from all quarters, which is why only a small percentage of the American populace accepts blind-watchmaker evolutionary theory.

ID is an ordinary claim, and evidence for it is mounting rapidly, on scales from the astronomically huge to the submicroscopically small.

Materialistic philosophy asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life is an accident. (Perhaps our life-tuned universe is the result of an infinitude of in-principle undetectable random universes produced by an in-principle undetectable random-universe-generating machine?) Materialistic philosophy asserts that inanimate matter spontaneously generated life. (No one has the faintest idea how this happened, or even how it could have happened. Origin-of-life hypotheses are hopelessly lost in a web of mutually contradictory speculations that are impotent in the face of the origin of biological information.) And blind-watchmaker Darwinism asserts that random errors (with failed experiments thrown out by natural selection) turned an unexplained cell into human civilization and all that it entails.

Darwinism/materialism is an extraordinary claim — a fantastic claim — and evidence for it is increasingly being shown to be not much more than wishful speculation.

Comments
"Everything in the universe is material or it wouldn’t be there." Information is not material. It has no mass, no length, width or height, and can exist in multiple places at the same time.GilDodgen
August 21, 2006
August
08
Aug
21
21
2006
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
I do not believe that the origin or origins and subsequent evolution of living things is instrinsic in the the nature of matter. Both required some sort of supernatural agency or agencies to initiate the processes. I further believe that was all that was required. I see no evidence of a supernatural at present and the entire thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is that it is not necessary anyway. In a word the history of life on this planet was entirely "prescribed." I believe this is in harmony with Einstein's view of the universe as well and you all know how I feel about Einstein. I am confident that like Einstein, I too will go to the dissection laboratory* a convinced determinist. *I intend for my carcass to be committed to Medical Anatomy class. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
By the way, by "accept" in (74) ("I can accept your basic point"), I meant that I can accept that this is something that you believe -- not that I accept this belief myself.Carlos
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Darwinism doesn’t exist except in the minds of its adherents. Well, that's something of a red herring, John, since (arguably) all theories, whether true or false, only exist in the minds of those who believe them. (The menu is not the meal.) But I can accept your basic point: that materialism is true and Darwinism is false. Your references to Berg and other orthogeneticists lead me to infer that your criticism of Darwinism is that Darwinism assumes that variation is not directed. Is that part of your criticism? If so, just what's the problem with undirected variation? Of course space, time, and energy must also be granted some existence, since they are not nothing, and some philosophers prefer "physicalism" over "materialism" for this reason. "Physicalism" is the claim that everything that exists can be explained in terms of the basic concepts employed in contemporary physics.Carlos
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Darwinism is in no way related to materialism. Everything in the universe is material or it wouldn't be there. Darwinism doesn't exist except in the minds of its adherents. It has no substance. It is a myth, an invention of the human imagination, conceived independently by a couple of Victorian naturalists, one of whom, Alfred Russel Wallace, had the good sense to completely abandon it in later life, something the Darwinians completely forget, just as they forget Julian Huxley's claim that evolution is finished and Theodosius Dobzhansky's demonstration that selection is impotent as an evolutionary device. How is that for a long sentence? How does that grab the Darwinian mystics? Don't be shy. Respond! "I am an old campaigner and I love a good fight." Franklin Delano Roosevelt Me too Franklin. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undeniable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Please address any further comments to the subject of ID versus Darwinism/materialism claims and evidence for them. I'd like to ask about this phase, "Darwinism/materialism." First, I want to ask -- perhaps with a hint of false naivete -- what "Darwinism" and "materialism" are supposed to mean. (I know what I think they mean, but I'm not 100% on what others think they mean). Second -- what justifies conflating the two? Are they identical? Does one imply the other? Could someone accept Darwinism without thereby being rationally committed to materialism -- or vice-versa? (A quick note on "rational commitment" -- clearly we can imagine someone who says, "I'm a Darwinist but not a materialist!" Does that person have an irrational set of beliefs?)Carlos
August 19, 2006
August
08
Aug
19
19
2006
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
P. Phillips post 52 I agree that the control of the assembly line is external to the DNA. It is in the cytoplasm but it is not external to the organism. Nothing about life is external to the organism. Life IS the organism. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 19, 2006
August
08
Aug
19
19
2006
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
Aw, and we were just getting to the good stuff!Carlos
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
Sorry Gil, posted before seeing your comment. Feel free to delete.tribune7
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Since dictionaries are nothing other than the collective opinions of lexicographers, How can something be discussed if upon which common definitions can't be agreed? In any event, I don’t see any reason not to think that the American system is also subordinated to the requirements of commodity production and distribution. So why do we spend at least a trillion dollars on public education in this country -- not counting colleges. Why do we spend billions on private schools? Why do we have a million-plus and growing home-schoolers? Why do we give $100 billion a year (at least) in charity (with the most capitalistic Red States being the most generious)? Capitalism for most entrepreneurs is far less about acquiring material goods than it is about freedom, creating something and being your own boss.tribune7
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
This thread has gone too far off topic. I admit guilt in contributing to this process. Please address any further comments to the subject of ID versus Darwinism/materialism claims and evidence for them.GilDodgen
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Since dictionaries are nothing other than the collective opinions of lexicographers, I'll stand by my "definition," on the grounds that it captures important aspects of capitalist production. In any event -- and this is a more general philosophical point -- definitions of complex phenomena cannot be separated from the theory about that phenomenon; there are no theory-neutral definitions. If one's theory about capitalism is Smithian, then one will emphasize private ownership and lack of overt state control. If one's theory about capitalism is Marxist, then one will emphasize the dynamics of production and distribution, and place less emphasis on ownership. I’d agree with you that a social sytem in which commodity production/distribution takes precedence over everything is a vile one but that is not capitalism. If you think about it, that better describes Soviet communism. The Soviet system was capitalist in every respect but name. The difference between the Soviet system and the Western had to do with how the system was managed. In the West, the system is managed by a loose network of agents. In the Soviet Union, the system was managed by a rigid hierarchy. This made the Soviet system slower to respond to change, and also made it more inefficient. The demise of the Soviet system was predictable from the beginning. In any event, I don't see any reason not to think that the American system is also subordinated to the requirements of commodity production and distribution. I agree that is vile, but it also all we've got.Carlos
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Carlos, The essential problem is humankind's fallen nature. At bottom, we are all inherently selfish, like all children. Don't waste time. Go out and make a personal sacrifice to help someone who is less fortunate than you. This is the only way you can realistically do anything of any ultimate consequence.GilDodgen
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Carlos --I would provisionally define capitalism as a social system in which commodity production and distribution take precedence over all other social needs. And you would be wrong. This freedictionary.com definition is as good as any namely cap·i·tal·ism-- An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. I'd agree with you that a social sytem in which commodity production/distribution takes precedence over everything is a vile one but that is not capitalism. If you think about it, that better describes Soviet communism. Capitalism basically means an individual being allowed to enter the marketplace without a state official's permission.tribune7
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
you will find that some pretty profound thinkers, starting about 150 years ago, began correctly to predict the steep slide into moral chaos which we are now experiencing, and they placed the blame squarely in the lap of materialism. I'm curious as to which thinkers you have in mind here. Have I come across to the rest of you as a materialist? I don't regard myself as a materialist -- for somewhat tricky philosophical reasons -- and I don't really understand how the term "materialism" gets used in these discussions. I certainly can't rule out the possibility that I'm coming across to the rest of you as a materialist, although I don't see myself as one! What is capitalism? I would provisionally define capitalism as a social system in which commodity production and distribution take precedence over all other social needs.Carlos
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Carlos: there doesn't have to be one "real" culprit. If you are a philosophical materialist, you might be strongly inclined to find SOME way to define the problems so that guilt can be assigned to one particular avenue which you then feel comfortable criticizing and rejecting, in this case capitalism. However, you will find that some pretty profound thinkers, starting about 150 years ago, began correctly to predict the steep slide into moral chaos which we are now experiencing, and they placed the blame squarely in the lap of materialism.tinabrewer
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
In short, I think that naturalism or materialism gets treated as a scapegoat; the real culprit is capitalism. Carlos!!!!?????? What is capitalism?tribune7
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Richard P. Feynman once compared scientific discovery to a religious experience. Having made a few myself I can certainly agree. Imagine the elation experienced by Archimedes as he immersed himself in the bath and shouted Eureka. "I have found it" is all that science has ever been all about. Everything was always there just waiting to be discovered. It was all "prescribed" don't you know. You don't have to be a Christian to have religious experiences. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable" John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Thanks, GilDodgen. I appreciate it. an obvious decline in common civility, out-of-control lawsuit filings, drug abuse, a skyrocketing divorce rate with an unprecedented number of children growing up fatherless, teenage suicide and the sense of many young people that their lives are ultimately absurd. Not to mention increasing wars, riots, "border disputes," ethnic cleansings, and widespread environmental deterioration. It's not a pretty picture, and even I, a secular non-Christian, find it hard to resist the allure of apocalypticism. I don't deny any of this -- I see it, too, and I'm very alarmed by it. There's been a general increase in narcissism over the past thirty-odd years, minimum. But I don't regard "materialism" as the cause of it. A few days ago I remarked to a friend, "the opposite of spirituality is narcissism." And it may also seem to you -- indeed, to many people! -- that scientific materialism is also opposed to spirituality. But there's a confusion lurking about here. The confusion is between spirituality as metaphysical theory and spirituality as life-attitude. (The Germans, ever happy to smash words together, have the word Lebensgefuehl, "life-feeling," for this.) The opposite of spirituality as a life-attitude is narcissism. The opposite of spirituality as a metaphysical theory is materialism. Now, the $64,000 question is: do spirituality as life-attitude and spirituality as metaphysical theory require one another? I think that they do only within the context of a specific faith tradition, namely Christianity -- and even then, only within certain versions of Christianity. Apart from that specific version of Christianity, spirituality as life-attitude is compatible with alternative metaphysical theories -- and Christianity, as a metaphysical theory, is compatible with various different life-attitudes. There are some devout Christians who are narcisstic jerks (although I personally don't know any). (Lurking around the edges of my presentation here is the problem of a post-metaphysical theology -- if that's possible, and if so, what form it could take.) I attribute the decline of spirituality as metaphysical theory to the rise of modern naturalism -- though not so much any specific doctrine as a way of thinking about rational inquiry. However, I think that the decline of spirituality as life-attitude, and the corresponding increase in narcissism, is caused by social disruption associated with industrialization, globalization, invasion of the social world by instrumental rationality (bureaucracy, advertising, marketting), and deterioration of immediate social relations (i.e. not mediated by commodity-exchange). In short, I think that naturalism or materialism gets treated as a scapegoat; the real culprit is capitalism.Carlos
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Carlos, "My physicist friends tell me that the universe is 'finite and unbounded.' I’ll confess ignorance: I don’t know what that really means..." As an analogy, imagine a balloon that is being blown up. At any given point the two-dimensional surface of the balloon is finite in area, but has no bounds (there is no starting point or ending point on the surface). It is expanding into a third dimension of space. The universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere: At any given point it is finite in volume but boundless, like the surface of the expanding balloon, but the three spatial dimensions of the universe are expanding into the fourth dimension of time. As for the beginning of time, the word "beginning" has no meaning outside of the time line (i.e., there is no "before" time, or "before" the beginning of the universe, at which point time came into existence). In my view, all of this suggests that the four dimensions of space and time in the physical universe are a subset of more dimensions from which the universe came, and anything that might exist in those "higher" dimensions would be omnipresent and omnitemporal vis-a-vis the physical universe.GilDodgen
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Dear Carlos, You are not creating unnecessary friction, and are certainly not causing trouble or otherwise not contributing to the conversation. I've enjoyed your thoughtful and well-articulated challenges. Here's my response to your recent and perfectly reasonable challenge: "The second thing is that, when you say 'have a good time and don’t worry about it,' that strikes me as implying that hedonism — a lifestyle of mere self-indulgence — follows if one denies ultimate meaning and/or ultimate purpose. And I don’t see how this follows at all." This doesn't follow for you Carlos, because it is obvious to me that you are a thoughtful and kind soul. But look at many aspects of our contemporary culture since materialism and the denial of ultimate meaning and purpose became a popular worldview: an obvious decline in common civility, out-of-control lawsuit filings, drug abuse, a skyrocketing divorce rate with an unprecedented number of children growing up fatherless, teenage suicide and the sense of many young people that their lives are ultimately absurd. Worst of all is a general cultural and personal denial of responsibility, and a focus on self and one's personal needs and desires. We have become profoundly narcissistic as a culture. Contemporary wisdom says "I'm okay and you're okay," when in fact none of us is okay. We once had magazines like Life, then came Us, and now we have Self. I suggest that all of this, to one degree or another, is the result of a basically materialistic worldview that denies ultimate meaning and purpose.GilDodgen
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
It's already becoming clear to everyone here that I'm not really an "IDist" -- although I am sincerely interested in better understanding the ID movement. That said, I don't want to create unnecessary friction. If it's felt that I'm causing trouble or otherwise not contributing to the conversation, I'm willing to bow out. It's not my style to be where I'm not wanted.Carlos
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
GilDodgen, You are correct; I did misquote you, and I apologize. Although the sentence I put in quotation-marks was not intended as a direct quotation, but as the sort of thing that I thought someone like you might say. Nevertheless, you caught onto something very interesting, and that's the notion of "ultimate purpose" or "ultimate meaning." I want to say two different things here. The first is that I don't have a firm grasp on what "ultimate meaning" or "ultimate purpose" is supposed to mean. That is, I don't understand what "ultimate" does here -- what's the difference between "meaning or purpose" and "ultimate meaning or purpose"? The addition of "ultimate" here does nothing for me, and so I wonder what it does for you. The scenario of the Earth's eventual destruction in several billion years doesn't move me at all. That the Earth will eventually be utterly annihilated doesn't threaten my acts with meaninglessness, and I so don't understand why it seems to do so for you. The second thing is that, when you say "have a good time and don’t worry about it," that strikes me as implying that hedonism -- a lifestyle of mere self-indulgence -- follows if one denies ultimate meaning and/or ultimate purpose. And I don't see how this follows at all.Carlos
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Dear Carlos, You misquoted me. I didn't say, “If matter is metaphysically basic, then nothing is really important, so enjoy yourself.” I said, "If matter precedes mind, nothing ultimately matters — have a good time and don’t worry about it." The word "ultimately" is ultimately important. One day our sun will become a red giant. Its corona will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. The earth's atmosphere will be stripped away, the sands will fuse into glass, and the oceans will boil away. There will be no record of anything any human has ever done. What can be the ultimate significance of influencing anyone or any of the events of history in such a scenario? If you are nothing more than matter in motion, your life has no ultimate meaning or purpose. We all have a passionate desire that our lives would have meaning and purpose, ultimately. It was programmed into us.GilDodgen
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
OK, Carlos. Keep an open mind.tribune7
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Oh, a final comment on post on the optimism inherent in the Electric Universe perspective: http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=12 # # # # # # # # # Biological enzymes are capable of utilizing resonant nuclear catalysis to transmute elements. Biological systems show evidence of communicating via resonant chemical systems, which may lend a physical explanation to the work of Rupert Sheldrake. DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA. There is more to life than chemistry. We are not hopelessly isolated in time and space on a tiny rock, orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy. We are hopefully connected with the power and intelligence of the universe.P. Phillips
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Regarding materialism, and the attack on religious faith, are readers aware of Sheldrake's brilliant review of Dennett's BREAKING THE SPELL? You can find it here: http://www.sheldrake.org/articlesnew/Dennett_bright.html I particulary like these observations of Sheldrake: ######################################################################################################################################################## These theories are evidence-free and wildly speculative. By several criteria, they are pseudoscience. Or they are intellectual games. In any case, Dennett goes on to speculate further. For example, in shamanic cultures, there might have been natural selection for a "hypnotizability gene" that affected brain chemistry, making people more prone to suggestion by shamans, and hence more likely to survive ill health because of a greater placebo response. In reading this book, I appreciated Dennett's intelligence and ingenuity. But he is pompous when he tries to persuade, even bully, religious believers to go on reading his book, and patronizing toward those who have not achieved the intellectual superiority to which atheists lay claim... I ought to have been an ideal reader: I am a Christian, an Anglican, not a bright. I am a strong believer in the value of scientific enquiry. I used to be an atheist myself. But I didn't find myself being reconverted by reading Breaking the Spell, and I was put off by Dennett's one-sidedness and dogmatic certainty. His commitment to atheism makes him dismiss out of hand the significance of religious experiences. For example, many people have experienced a sense of the presence of God, or overwhelming love, or a feeling of unity with nature, or visions, or transformative near-death experiences. In the 1970s, the Oxford biologist Sir Alister Hardy initiated a scientific enquiry into religious experiences in Britain, and found that that they were far more common than most atheists -- and even most believers -- had imagined... Both Dennett and I admire William James, one of the pioneers of psychology, and author of the classic book The Varieties of Religious Experience. James made a serious study of people's accounts of religious experiences, as did Hardy. But Dennett rules all such evidence out of court. Powerful personal experiences "can't be used as contributions to the communal discussion that we are now conducting." He assumes that religious experiences are generated inside the brain, and that they are illusory. How can Dennett be so sure? In the end, it all comes down to his own beliefs. Bright memes have infected him and taken over his brain. Those memes are now trying to leap from his brain into yours through the medium of Breaking the Spell.P. Phillips
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Hi Carlos, Emergent theory doesn't do much for me- I mean, talk about science by analogy! But I won't deny its appeal to some, and I am sure this is not the thread for me to start an argument against it. Perhaps I'll leave it at this: granting that you've studied and grasped the ideas behind emergence and self-organization, is there any way you would say "that was obvious"? Even if you were granted that things like consciousness or intent could emerge from complexity does that make it in any way obvious that ultimate purpose can self-organize or emerge from matter? These ideas require far more mental gymnastic and intellectual grappling (and imagination, in my opinion) than Gil's point, that if matter is all there is there can be no ultimate purpose. However you work these theories, isn't your frustration that people would see it as obvious that mind precedes matter not self-imposed?Charlie
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
(45) Here everything depends on what's permitted to count as "evidence," and which intuitions are driving the engine of theory selection. In any event, it's not yet clear to me how much water, if any, Dembski's arguments hold. My own proclivities lean me towards "complexity theory" (e.g. Kauffman, Goodwin), and I don't feel the right kind of theological pressure that would incline me to prefer intelligent design over complexity theory. (That is to say, I do feel theological pressure -- I'm not an atheist, in the ordinary sense of the term -- but it's not the kind of theological pressure that would motivate me to prefer intelligent design over complexity theory.)Carlos
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
(43) Science tells us that the universe had a beginning. Period. If some future discovery yields a space-time continuum we will deal with it then. My physicist friends tell me that the universe is "finite and unbounded." I'll confess ignorance: I don't know what that really means, and I don't know whether something "finite and unbounded" could have a beginning in any sense other than metaphorical -- since the beginning of time could not have been a beginning in time.Carlos
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply