Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When I was in college I studied classical piano with Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist and a student of Bela Bartok. Istvan was a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps. The stories he told me still haunt me to this day.

The commandant of the death camp liked to play Bach over the loudspeaker system while he had random inmates shot or hung, just for fun and entertainment. Nadas told me about the horror of listening to Bach while he watched his fellow inmates being machine-gunned to death in front of him. Nadas told me, “I knew every note of that music and could play it on the piano, but I also knew that if they discovered I was a concert pianist they would break all my fingers so I could never play the piano again.”

Nadas’s death camp was eventually “liberated” by the Russians. Istvan was one of only 150 survivors from a camp of thousands. He weighed 90 pounds and was suffering from dysentery and other diseases. While the Russians were transporting him on a train to what he knew would be a Russian internment camp he managed to jump out of the train as it slowed in the mountains. Under machine-gun fire he fled into the trees, was helped my local residents, and was eventually smuggled by an African American GI under a tarp in the back of a jeep through Check Point Charlie.

Nadas eventually discovered that every member of his extended family had either been gassed or otherwise tortured and exterminated by the Nazis, or shot by the Russians, with one exception: his mother, whom he eventually tracked down in Italy after the war.

One evening, after a concert at the university while I was studying piano with Nadas, which was conducted by a guest “contemporary composer” — it was just a bunch of random cacophony, very painful to listen to, but sold as legitimate music — I asked Nadas what he thought.

“It is a Himalayan dung heap,” he replied. (Nadas spoke six languages fluently, and had a way with words.) This phrase stuck in my mind, and it’s the perfect description of something so obviously stupid that it represents a pile of crap of Himalayan proportions.

The students and faculty applauded the Himalayan-dung-heap “music” because no one had the courage to point out the obvious, except for Nadas.

This is a perfect metaphor for Darwinism. Very few people in academia have the courage to point out the cacophony and illogic of Darwinian speculation.

It takes the courage of someone like Nadas, who was willing to jump off a train in the mountains under machine-gun fire, to tell the obvious truth.

Comments
Upright: "Show a little leg." Yah, that's what we meant. Mfrank in nylons.allanius
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, it is now a recorded fact on this forum (over the course of three or four threads) that you have not only been given some central claims made by ID proponents, but have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifcts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes. It is a conversation that documents an increasing reluctance on your part to engage. Im happy to cut and past the converastion and its timestamps if need be. It has come time for you to recant this statement: ..."my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes."Upright BiPed
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Well I guess I have my answer. The answer is dishonest. Empiricism among materialists amounts to no more than showing a little leg. /yawnUpright BiPed
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
(20), "Atheists even claim that their worldview is all perfectly rational and empirically verified!" Wrong. As an atheist, I can tell you that my atheism is not empirically verified, it's a position based on the fact that we have no objective evidence for the existence of gods. So in that regard it is a rational decision, but one that is not so much empirically verified as justified on the basis that those who claim gods exist have failed to empirically verify their claim. Now, if there was overwhelming valid, objective evidence for such a god, then I would of course make the rational decision to cease being an atheist. But at present, there isn't.Grunty
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Good Afternoon Lizzie, I hope that visiting universities with your son is going well enough. I made it relatively easy for my parents by insisting on only applying for one university (albeit one that was 400 miles away from home)! Just picking up on your comment: “I think the universe includes a great many “intelligent” systems, by which I mean systems that incorporate what look like highly ingenious feedback mechanisms to maintain themselves in existence, and that these are often nested – our cells are “intelligent” homeostatic systems nested within homeo-static tissues and organs and organisms; organisms themselves may be “intelligent” homeostatic systems in the sense we more normally use the word. And populations are “intelligent” systems at yet another level of analysis.” Remove the speech marks from the word ‘intelligent’ and we’re all singing from the same hymn sheet here. In other words, everywhere we look, anything we look at, is literally screaming at us “THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!”. Naturally, this is all to be expected if you are a Believer (Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc). It is also most satisfactorily explained by Intelligent Design theory. In fact, the belief in Creation or the scientific fact of ID is so sure and convincing to the majority of people alive (or who have ever lived) precisely because of the way everything in existence is screaming at us “THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING”. In other words, the evidence for Design is plainly obvious precisely because of the things you describe in your comment. But then atheists start putting speech marks around the word ‘intelligent’ and then start looking for ways to explain away this plainly obvious evidence for Design as something that is merely an illusion, concluding that there is no Intelligent Designer(s) because chance and necessity (ie. Evolution) is capable of explaining the things you describe in your comment. Atheists even claim that their worldview is all perfectly rational and empirically verified! But that claim does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever. That is because there is in fact nothing, not a single thing that is rational or empirically verified about the atheist worldview. So, whatever the basis for maintaining the atheistic worldview, it is neither rational nor empirical. If it is not rational or empirical, then what is it exactly? Cultural or emotional maybe? I suggest that we need to get to the bottom of this because both parties agree that existence is absolutely amazing. But only one party has logic, reason and evidence on their side: and it’s not the atheists. I know that sounds a bit strong, Lizzie but that is my honest opinion. If atheism had anything rational, empirical or otherwise persuasive about it, I would have mentioned it above. And it leaves me wondering: why on Earth does Lizzie, an exceptionally intelligent, courteous and reasonable person, believe that the “great many intelligent systems” in our universe all somehow made themselves (when it is plainly obvious that they didn’t!)?Chris Doyle
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Both proposals are a reconstruction of the remote, unobserved past. Direct empirical tests leading to falsification are impossible. However, we do know something about thermodynamics, chemical kinetics and the subject of the source of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. Which account for the origin of a case of FRSCO/I, in the context of a machine involved in a self-replicating system using the von Neumann principles, is better warranted? ANS: Absent a priori imposition of materialism, we know the only credible source of codes, algorithms, language, complex funcitonal organisaiton per a wiring plan, etc. We also know that such configs are maximally isolated in the space of all possible configs and that without these subsystems in place and properly working no self replication will be possible, and indeed as this is the protein factory, no anabolic metabolism too. So, the answer is obvious: design is best explanation absent censorship, and is testable on demonstrating the opposite empirically. So -- with apologies to the Elizabethans -- go thee and build thy self-assembling FSCO/I system with self replication and metabolism, without intelligent direction. But, build thou not a simulation merely, but an on the ground kinematic system. At a simpler level, if you can demonstrate that FSCO/I emerges spontaneously from chance based random walks across config space [no oracles, please, and no preloading of targetting information please], hill climbing only after function requiring a complexity of at least 500 - 1,000 bits has been achieved, that would be credible evidence against the inference to design on FSCO/I. A monkeys at the keyboards program, with filtering against say the Gutenberg database of online texts, would do. 73 or for preference 143 ascii characters worth of functional text in coherent language. As has been said from the outset. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
kairos; I found this video you may be interested in: The Stages of Mitosis - molecular animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGV3fv-uZYI ,,,the site has several more animations that you may find helpful for your work; =============== also of interest: Human Anatomy - Impressive Transparent Visualization http://www.vimeo.com/26011909bornagain77
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
So faced with two stories about the origin of the ribosome: A: That it was designed by a designer or designers unknown B: That it evolved by means of the following selectable precursors... Which would you say was the more "empirically testable"?Elizabeth Liddle
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Morning. Perhaps you should redirect that to Mr Lewontin in his infamous 1997 NYRB article:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
Looks to me that Just-So stores in origins science are after the fact, ad hoc patches over the facts [look at what happened with discovering cells and soft, stretchy tissue in T Rex dinosaur remains to see what I am questioning . . . ], tend to lack observational warrant per actual evidence, and tend to reflect an a priori commitment to materialism. A proper explanatory hypothesis, by contrast is empirically grounded, seeks to move towards the truth without a priori censorship on what is possible, and is set in the context of not explaining away so that it can be called on with equal virtuosity to "explain" any and all possible facts because it locks one into an a priori circle. At minimum, it should be empirically testable and its core research programme should be subject to the possibility of real refutation, i.e. the armoured belt of auxiliary hypotheses should not be getting into the habit of patching any and all possible leaks. Put more directly science in a metaphysical circle is out. As, Newton implied. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Gil: Thanks for your reply! You say:
Elizabeth Liddle: Lovely story, Gil,… Sorry, but my story is the opposite of lovely. Nadas miraculously survived Nazi torture (they pulled his fingernails out with pliers and subjected him to much worse torture I won’t describe) and murder in the death camp.
Poorly chosen word on my part. I meant, moving, touching. Apologies.
Group-think is the antithesis of lovely when the group has the power to impose its views through intimidation.
I couldn't agree more.
Intimidation is the heritage of Darwinism in academia. That was the ultimate point of my post. If you are not aware of this, you need to educate yourself.
I'm aware of all kinds of biases in science. However, the good thing about science is that IMO it is ultimately self-correctly. For somewhat unlovely reasons - in science success does not come with supporting the consensus but with changing it. So there is huge incentive to falsify the status quo. Yes, sometimes good ideas struggle for recognition, but in some ways that is as it should be - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But when you can support an extroardinary claim with extraordinary evidence, then your success in science is assured as it is not with a merely ordinary claim supported by ordinary evidence, though you may get a longer publication list that way. But Impact Factors count :)
Just as an experiment, try telling those with whom you associate in the Darwinian evolutionary community (you’ll need to feign sincerity with your best acting skills!) that you have rethought evolutionary biology, and have come to the conclusion that intelligent-design advocates are really on to something, and that you think Darwinian theory is in need of a major revolution of thought concerning real design as opposed to apparent design in biology.
Well, Gil, unfortunately I don't lie :) However, that doesn't matter, because I have frequently advanced the argument of "Intelligent Design" in the sense that I actually disagree with those who dismiss the idea that there are patterns that are a signature of a set of processes that include intelligence That occasionally raises an eyebrow or two, and often some interest. However, my position is that the common denominator of that set of processes is not "intentional intelligence" as I would put it, but processes that involve deeply nested contingencies and feedback loops. These processes are found, paradigmatically, in human brains, but also, I would argue, in evolutionary systems. In other words, that "intelligent systems" are worth investigating as systems, not just in AI, but in systems like habitats and biospheres. But of course there's nothing novel about that.
Try that experiment and get back to us with the reaction of your peers.
If I could do it honestly, I'd do it in a heartbeat :) But then I wouldn't be able to do it successfully if I couldn't do it honestly, so if you want me to try, you'll have to first persuade me of the argument :) It hasn't happened yet :)
P.S.: Elizabeth, I for one, and I’m sure the rest of us at UD, really appreciate your contributions here. It keeps things lively, and it is evident that you are a very thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, good and sincere person. We just think that you are wrong, and you think that we are wrong. The truth is not in the middle, however. Either design exists in the cosmos and living systems, or it does not.
Thanks for the welcome, Gil :) I appreciate it. I agree that the truth is not "in the middle". However, I do think that the truth lies in an understanding of what constitutes a "design" system, whether in a brain or outside it. Also in a clear understanding of what constitutes "intention". I think the universe includes a great many "intelligent" systems, by which I mean systems that incorporate what look like highly ingenious feedback mechanisms to maintain themselves in existence, and that these are often nested - our cells are "intelligent" homeostatic systems nested within homeo-static tissues and organs and organisms; organisms themselves may be "intelligent" homeostatic systems in the sense we more normally use the word. And populations are "intelligent" systems at yet another level of analysis. However, only, to our knowledge, at the level of the organism, and even then, only in some organisms, does that intelligence reach much beyond the immediate to weigh up future benefits against present benefits, thus forming what we call "intentions". But I think that viewed in that nested way, the whole thing hangs together very nicely IMO. It's not a conventional view, although not that original a one neither. And perhaps I could express it by saying that I think that it is vital to understand biology at the systems level, and to recognise that at the systems level, we see what is reasonably well described as "intelligence". Denying that is foolish IMO. But so, IMO, is stopping there, and inferring some external designer! And this is why I keep saying that the objection to materialist that it is "reductionist" is to make the same mistake as materialists sometimes make when they say it is! Materialism need not, and should not, IMO, be "reductionist". Systems have properties that their subsystems and sub-sub systems do not, therefore systems cannot be "reduced" to a list of subsystems. And highly complex systems that result in the utilisation of energy to maintain patterns in existence over time cannot be "reduced" to chemistry, or atoms, or hadrons and leptons. They have to be understood at the level of the system, and some of those systems have properties that we recognise as at least a kind of "intelligence". And some of those systems are people who have the Thing Itself :) Oops, short post turned into a long one. Be back soon! Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
How do you distinguish between a hypothesis and a "just-so story", jstanley?Elizabeth Liddle
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
There are specific hypotheses just-so stories concerning the evolution of the ribosome, for instance, also for the origins of the first protocells.
FIFY. :)jstanley01
July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: Lovely story, Gil,... Sorry, but my story is the opposite of lovely. Nadas miraculously survived Nazi torture (they pulled his fingernails out with pliers and subjected him to much worse torture I won't describe) and murder in the death camp. Group-think is the antithesis of lovely when the group has the power to impose its views through intimidation. Intimidation is the heritage of Darwinism in academia. That was the ultimate point of my post. If you are not aware of this, you need to educate yourself. Just as an experiment, try telling those with whom you associate in the Darwinian evolutionary community (you'll need to feign sincerity with your best acting skills!) that you have rethought evolutionary biology, and have come to the conclusion that intelligent-design advocates are really on to something, and that you think Darwinian theory is in need of a major revolution of thought concerning real design as opposed to apparent design in biology. Try that experiment and get back to us with the reaction of your peers. P.S.: Elizabeth, I for one, and I'm sure the rest of us at UD, really appreciate your contributions here. It keeps things lively, and it is evident that you are a very thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, good and sincere person. We just think that you are wrong, and you think that we are wrong. The truth is not in the middle, however. Either design exists in the cosmos and living systems, or it does not.GilDodgen
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
My, my, Elizabeth. I thought you weren't a reductionist. Yet the first refuge you take in response to Upright BiPed's question is, well here's a part, and there's a part ,and every where there's a part part.... And voila! Explained.Mung
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
EL, "But the fact is that many smart people disagree for good reasons." Would those reasons be supported by any direct experimental evidence showing that material processes are even capable of creating the specific properties and dynamics (those you and I have have discussed) observed regarding the rise of information, and the exchange of information? This is a central question Dr Liddle, I do hope you'll answer it appropriately. "Appropriately" in this instance would be the answer "YES" if there are any experiments that demonstrate to some degree that chemistry can (upon its own physical forces) result in the rise of representations and the protocols that actualize them --or-- the answer "NO" if there are no such experiments available to cite. Are there any such experiments available to cite, Dr Liddle? If there are, then you answer is "YES", but if there are not, then your answer (by any rational implementation of intellectual honesty) must be "NO"Upright BiPed
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Liz: "They may be wrong, and may, ultimately, be impossible to verify," Slick.junkdnaforlife
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
It depends what, specifically, you are talking about, Upright Biped, and at what level of theory. There are specific hypotheses concerning the evolution of the ribosome, for instance, also for the origins of the first protocells. Also for tRNA. They may be wrong, and may, ultimately, be impossible to verify, because the relevant data is unobtainable. But that isn't the same as saying that no materialist explanation is possible, or even plausible. I do realise that many people here, yourself included, consider that there is something fundamentally implausible about information being created by material mechanisms. But the fact is that many smart people disagree for good reasons. Again, they may be wrong, but to assume that they are obviously wrong is to seriously misunderstand the counter-arguments to your position. Is my point!Elizabeth Liddle
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
It’s possible the theories are wrong (some of them almost certainly are) but people don’t support them because they are scared of looking stupid, or being fired, but because they are smart, well-informed people, and they think it makes sense, and that the counter-arguments don’t.
Interesting comments Dr Liddle. Tell me, what exactly is the materialist' theory for the rise of the discrete representations and protocols that make the transfer of biological information possible? Given the gravity of the role that biological information plays, surely this is one area where we would not want to assume too much, no?Upright BiPed
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
um underestimate. oops.Elizabeth Liddle
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Lovely story, Gil, but completely irrelevant to Darwin. And depending on what the "random cacophony" really was, possibly even irrelevant to the music. I know it's a tempting fable, the Emperor's New Clothes - the idea that a widely accepted idea is only accepted because people are too scared to admit they don't believe it - but it is simply not applicable to evolutionary theories about biology. It's possible the theories are wrong (some of them almost certainly are) but people don't support them because they are scared of looking stupid, or being fired, but because they are smart, well-informed people, and they think it makes sense, and that the counter-arguments don't. I am in that camp. Don't underestimage it :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Gil, this is an excellent post. Any naturalistic account of life is just ridiculous. Another great analogy is the fairy tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. In a decade or two, if it takes that long, it will be impossible to find anyone who will admit to ever believing such utter nonsense. How clueless must one be to believe that biological information can be generated by the laws of physics? Pretty clueless...tgpeeler
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Berceuse, It's all part of the group-think package in academia. Diversity is great, as long as everyone thinks alike. The other factor is fear of chastisement by one's peers. If you think that atonal music, atheism and Darwinism are bunk, you dare not speak out, and must applaud along with the crowd.GilDodgen
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
I could be way off the mark, but it seems to me that the ones who champion modern atonal music as not only high art but superior to euphonic music are typically the same individuals who have an atheistic/materialistic view of the world. I wonder why that is.Berceuse
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
This is another good example of speaking truth ot ones opinion of the truth in a free nation. Ignoring all pressures to be silent. May i do so too. I'm glad this , Jewish I presume, man escaped the Nazi's. yet that doesn't mean that if the Nazi's had not turned against the Jews they still would of been on the allies side. In fact as in WW1 they would of been loyal German or austrian etc citizens and trying to kill us. The priority is always ones own people and friends. Then the rest of mankind. This man got Americas good things and did all right for most of his life. Many Americans, and Canadians, lost people in the war and didn't get the good things and even suffered from the foreign competition. Is this man any different then the rest of them and merely a victim? I understand the Jews over there were the backbone of the soviet union and very powerful in pre-WW11 Europe. they were a important part of the foundations that led to the native uprisings and the lack of Christian resistance. As in origin subjects let investigation be done first before conclusions about what the truth is. I'm speaking truth as I see it here. Weigh the evidence of good and evil and right and wrong. As in origin subjects time changes conclusions about interpretations. The author makes a good example for resisting error and evil. Evil is simple to figure out but error requires more reflection after investigation.Robert Byers
July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9

Leave a Reply