Is beauty for its own sake an argument against Darwinism?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 5, 2019

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s another new vid, for the John 10:10 project, from Illustra Media:

Charles Darwin once wrote that the sight of a male peacock’s tail made him physically ill. Why? Because he knew that the gratuitous beauty so prevalent throughout the living world points unmistakably to intelligent design, foresight and plan. Explore the artistry and stunning implications of natural colors, patterns, and ornamentation in the animal and plant kingdoms that exist for a purpose beyond mere survival.

Note: Darwin went on to develop his theory of sexual selection, to explain such phenomena as the peacock’s tail. While it became dogma that sexual selection explains the peacock’s tail, it’s not clear that the peahen actually cares as much about it as the Darwinist does.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Can sex explain evolution?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

PK, I don’t know you tell me, you seem to believe that the words you posted carry objective meaning apart from me as the beholder. Your post is quite a contradiction.jcfrk101_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

BA77 I think that this is the correct second link. The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek Thanks for that.Latemarch_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Experiencing Awe Increases Belief in the Supernatural - November 25, 2013 Excerpt: Valdesolo and his colleague Jesse Graham of the University of Southern California tested this prediction by having participants watch awe-inspiring scenes from BBC’s Planet Earth documentary series or neutral video clips from a news interview. Afterward, the participants were asked how much awe they felt while watching the video, and whether they believed that worldly events unfold according to some god’s or other non-human entity’s plan. Overall, participants who had watched the awe-inspiring video tended to believe more in supernatural control, and were more likely to believe in God when compared with the news-watching group.,,, https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/experiencing-awe-increases-belief-in-the-supernatural.html The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek - Sept. 4, 2019 Excerpt: God loves beauty. As Thomas Aquinas asserts, God “is beauty itself”[1] St. Anselm argues that “God must be the supreme beauty for the same reasons that He must be justice and other such qualities.”[2] As the contemporary theologian Michael Horton so aptly states in his book The Christian Faith, “God would not be God if he did not possess all his attributes in the simplicity and perfection of his essence.”[3] The reason why we gravitate toward beauty is because God created us in his image.,,, In a chapel sermon titled, “Can Beauty Save the World,” Albert Mohler explains, "The Christian worldview posits that anything pure and good finds its ultimate source in the self-existent, omnipotent God who is infinite in all his perfections. Thus the Christian worldview reminds us that the “transcendentals”—the good, the true, and the beautiful—are inseparable. Thus when Psalm 27 speaks of the beauty of the Lord, the Psalmist is also making a claim about the goodness of the Lord and the truthfulness of the Lord. While we distinguish God’s attributes from one another in order to understand them better, we must also recognize that these attributes are inseparable from one another.[19]" Mohler goes on to state, “Our job as Christians is to remember the difference between the beautiful and the pretty,” because pure beauty is found in goodness and truth.[20] When we gaze upon ascetically pleasing objects or witness kind deeds in this world, we are at best seeing imperfect versions of the pure beauty that can only be found in God. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/experiencing-awe-increases-belief-in-the-supernatural.html
bornagain77_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

2Jcfrk101 "...where the raw bites do not constitute any useful information without a key..." Who determines usefulness? Aren't we right back to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?Pater Kimbridge_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

I don’t find the Mona Lisa beautiful. I lined up, like everyone else does, to see it and was totally unimpressed. What I found amazing was that the Mona Lisa was protected behind bullet proof glass whereas hundreds of more beautiful and interesting paintings are only protected by a shin-high wire run a foot and a half in front of the walls.Ed George_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

PK, The Algorithmic information theory is primarily useful when trying to detect information in encoded data, where the raw bites do not constitute any useful information without a key. The key could be as simple as a type, or a data format that requires an algorithm to decode. In such a case higher degrees of randomness do correlate to higher degrees of information, the theorem is useful for detecting information in encoded data, the example I presented was not encoded. As an example, language would be a good candidate for detecting higher degrees of randomness via the Algorithmic information theory, more unique sounding words, will usually mean more is being said, this is useful when trying to detect the degree of information if one does not have a mechanism for decoding the actual data. Though Japanese sounds like gibberish to me, I could determine the amount of unique information within a phrase by detecting how many unique non-repetitive sounds are made. But a painting is not encoded, so the theorem does not apply.jcfrk101_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

@Jcfrk101 #13 I hate to break it to you, but the randomized Mona Lisa actually has more information in it than the original, if you adhere to Algorithmic Information Theory.Pater Kimbridge_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

@John_a_designer #11 Oh, please, enlighten us with a demonstration of basic logic with respect to beauty.Pater Kimbridge_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

When it comes to the big questions, atheistic naturalism/materialism offers absolutely no basis for any kind of truth in the area of knowledge, meaning or values. Rather all you have are mindless opinions based on personal prejudice and herd like group think…john_a_designer_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

PK, It's not just that humans consistently call the same things in nature beautiful, but that the things in nature that humans call beautiful often posses similar attributes. They often posses a high degree of information in their structure. As a thought experiment imagine the Mona Lisa, then assume that we break the painting into a grid consisting of thousands of cubes, each representing a fraction of the original image, and then randomly move the cubes around in the grid. How likely are you to get a group of people to consider the randomized more beautiful than the original? In most cases it is far more likely that the original is considered more beautiful than the randomized painting. The argument here isn't that beauty means design, but that most of the things that the human being perceives as beautiful often posses a high degree of information in their structure.jcfrk101_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

PK,
I am frequently amazed at how some people seem to have a poor grasp of where their brains stop and where the rest of the universe begins. Thinking that beauty is objective is an unwarranted blurring of that dividing line, also known as the Mind Projection Fallacy.
Indeed. Not to be out done by the hubris of assuming that you know where the dividing line is. You've assumed materialism which if you've been paying attention to BA77 is not a good place to be.Latemarch_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Pater said it that settles it! Take note all you IDiots. Pater Kimbridge’s opinions are true because… Well, I don’t know why they would be true… Because he thinks they are true? Who the hell Pater Kimbridge and why should we give any credence to what he believes and thinks? I am frequently amazed at how some people seem to have a poor grasp of basic logic.john_a_designer_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

@Latemarch #9 Just because humans have similar reactions to things like orchids, doesn't make it any less subjective. Beauty is not an inherent quality of any thing. It's like the color red, it only exists as a concept in the mind. To think otherwise is to make a category error. I am frequently amazed at how some people seem to have a poor grasp of where their brains stop and where the rest of the universe begins. Thinking that beauty is objective is an unwarranted blurring of that dividing line, also known as the Mind Projection Fallacy.Pater Kimbridge_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Sev,
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How can it be evidence of design?
Quite the assumption there in that first sentence. Oh, I'll give you that some beauty is subjective. But that doesn't mean that it all is. Before you get mired in subjectivism or basing your worldview on an aphorism consider rethinking that first sentence. I have yet to find someone that thinks the orchids blooming in my north facing window to be ugly. The uniform response is awe. If everyone sees the same thing maybe it's because it's objectively there. Sounds suspiciously like science where from the same input (orchid) I reliably get the same result (awe) time and time again. If the first sentence is not true now what might the answer to the question be?Latemarch_{October 7, 2019
October
10
Oct
7
07
2019
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Great film and it highlights a huge problem for Darwin that rarely gets noticed. Why is it that only humans have the ability to appreciate beauty? It's not necessary for survival. Why does unnecessary beauty exist in nature? Evolution should not be able to produce unnecessary beauty. Could it be that humans were created to experience and appreciate beauty so that we can better know, love, worship, and appreciate God? Animals have no need for this. But David said this in Ps. 27:4 "One thing I ask from the Lord, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple." We were made to worship and love God and the ability to appreciate beauty is necessary in order to be able to do that. There is the added side benefit of enjoying sunsets, starry skies, symphonies, and art masterpieces as well.tjguy_{October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

'A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-q.....ation.html' - BA #3 Ha ha You hapless materialist twits ! God dunnit !!!!!!!! as I posited some time ago. It just seemed the obvious alternative to causation by regular means within space-time. And moral beauty is as high above sensual beauty as the heavens are above the earth, which is why such a small, seemingly footling precept in the Mosaic Law, as to refrain from seeething a kid in its mother's milk has such enormous implications.Axel_{October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Besides mathematics and beauty, there are endless litany of other abstract immaterial objects, immaterial objects that everybody, including Darwinists, take for granted as being real, that become illusory and therefore ‘non-real’ within the Darwinian worldview. As Dr. Egnor states in the following article, “Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts.”,,,
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals – Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, ,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
And as M. Anthony Mills states in the following article, even 'persons' become 'unreal' in the Darwinist's materialistic worldview. In fact he goes on to state, "Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics."
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Even the concept of species itself becomes abstract and therefore 'unreal' on a Darwinian view of things:
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt: Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
As should be needless to say, any theory that denies to very existence of 'species' cannot possibly be the true theory that purportedly explains the "Origin of Species" One final note, besides mathematics and beauty, ‘truth’ itself is also an abstract immaterial entity which is not reducible to some materialistic explanation:
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God – Peter Kreeft 11. The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
Therefore since the reality of ‘abstract’ truth itself is denied in the Darwinist's reductive materialistic worldview, then it necessarily follows that the Darwinian worldview cannot ever possibly be true. Verses:
John 18:37-38 “Then You are a king!” Pilate said. “You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked.,,, John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
bornagain77_{October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Alex Vilenkin, who mathematically proved that all hypothetical inflationary universes must also have had a beginning, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,
"It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty" Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One: (page 201)
As well, Richard Feynman called Euler’s Identity a ‘jewel’:
“Richard Feynman was a huge fan and called it a "jewel".” http://www.sciencedump.com/content/world%E2%80%99s-most-beautiful-equations
‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the fairly recent discovery of the Amplituhedron:
The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty - 21:12 minute mark) - Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272
Paul Dirac, when pressed for a definition of mathematical beauty, reacted as such:
Dirac threw up his hands. Mathematical beauty, he said, ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’ – though he added that it was something ‘people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating’. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/beauty-is-truth-theres-a-false-equation/
And indeed, just as Dirac held, it is found when mathematicians are shown equations such as Euler's identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:
Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014 Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown "ugly" and "beautiful" equations while in a brain scanner at University College London. The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by "beautiful" maths.,,, One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: "A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain - the medial orbito-frontal cortex - like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26151062 Equations Are Art inside a Mathematician’s Brain - 2014 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/equations-are-art-inside-a-mathematicians-brain/
For any math geeks who may be reading this, here is some fine art for you guys to appreciate:
(Eight of) The world’s most beautiful equations http://www.sciencedump.com/content/world%E2%80%99s-most-beautiful-equations
What is astonishing, in this seemingly deep connection between math and beauty, is the fact that the ‘argument from beauty’ is a Theistic argument.
Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God: Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml
Beauty is certainly not an atheistic argument. In fact Darwin himself stated if anything were created for beauty in the eyes of man it “would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Charles Darwin - 1859, 199)
bornagain77_{October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Aside from all these technical empirical falsifications of the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview, the main reason why reductive materialism must be false is fairly easy to understand. For something, anything, to be ‘truly real’ for us in the first place we must first and foremost be conscious of it. There is simply no way to circumvent the primary prerequisite of consciousness in any definition of reality that we may put forth. Here are a few quotes from the main founders of quantum mechanics that drives this ‘simple’ point home:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
Besides the fact that the Darwinist’s entire reductive materialistic worldview has now been empirically falsified by advances in quantum mechanics, there is another insurmountable difficulty with the Darwinian claim that only his reductive materialistic worldview is truly scientific. All of science, engineering, and technology, is based upon mathematics.
How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley - paper Excerpt: Only in the 20th century have we come to fully understand that the incredibly diverse phenomena that we observe in nature are the outworking of a very small number of physical laws, each of which may be described by a simple mathematical relationship. Indeed, so simple in mathematical form and small in number are these physical laws that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper, as seen in Table 1. 1. Mechanics (Hamilton's Equations) 2. Electrodynamics (Maxwell's Equations) 3. Statistical Mechanics (Boltzmann's Equations) 4. Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger's Equations) 5. General Relativity (Einstein's Equation) http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/scievidence.html Mechanical Engineer Excerpt: Math Required: College Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus I and II, Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Statistics,,, http://online2.byu.edu/?career=mechanical-engineer What is the relation between the mathematics and the engineering? Excerpt: An Engineer can be a Good and Successful Engineer, only if he is Good in Mathematics. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_relation_between_the_mathematics_and_the_engineering Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson – Nov. 2011 Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell’s four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you’re relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine’s algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you’re hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time. “When you listen to a mobile phone, you’re not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking,” Devlin told me. “You’re hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/describing-nature-math.html
And yet, although all of science, engineering, and technology, is based upon mathematics, mathematics itself exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
Platonic mathematical world - image https://image.slidesharecdn.com/quantuminformation2-120301000431-phpapp01/95/quantum-information-14-728.jpg?cb=1330561190 Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
To make this predicament with mathematics even more problematic for Darwinists, it is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians 'sense of beauty'. Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’. Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to his being able to find truth through math:
‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’ Paul Dirac
Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated:
Truth not equal to Beauty - Philip Ball – May 2014 Excerpt: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’ Albert Einstein http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/beauty-is-truth-theres-a-false-equation/ Einstein’s Masterpiece - Michael W. Begun – Fall 2015 Excerpt: General relativity has served as a paragon of a scientific theory, and generations of physicists have hailed its sublimity. Ernest Rutherford, for instance: “the theory of relativity by Einstein ... cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art.” Wolfgang Pauli: “it will always remain the pattern of a theory of consummate beauty of the mathematical structure.” Sean Carroll: “General relativity is the most beautiful physical theory ever invented.” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/einsteins-masterpiece
bornagain77_{October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution is based on the philosophy of reductive materialism. i.e. "that only the material world (matter) is truly real,"
Reductive materialism philosophy Reductive Materialism. The view that only the material world (matter) is truly real, and that all processes and realities observed in the universe can be explained by reducing them down to their most basic scientific components, e.g., atoms, molecules, and everything else thought to make up what we know as "matter." https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/reduc-body.html
There are a few problems with the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic belief that "that only the material world (matter) is truly real". Number one science itself, specifically advances in quantum mechanics, have now falsified reductive materialism as being true. Specifically, advances in quantum mechanics have now falsified hidden variables and have now also falsified ‘realism’ itself. (‘Realism’ is the belief that a material reality exists separate from our conscious observation of it.
Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he'd be a convert today - June 13, 2014 Excerpt: In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein's hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated! http://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-quantum-imply-instant-causation.html Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016 DISCUSSION Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,, Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600162.full "hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?" per Jimfit - UD blogger Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html The Death of Materialism - InspiringPhilosophy – (Material reality does not exist without an observer) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE Materialism has been dead for decades and recent research only reconfirms this, as this video will show. This video was reviewed by physicist Fred Kuttner and Richard Conn Henry. A few other physicists reviewed this but asked to remain anonymous for privacy reasons.
bornagain77_{October 6, 2019
October
10
Oct
6
06
2019
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How can it be evidence of design?Seversky_{October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

What’s also interesting is whether or not the peacock can discern the value of the symmetry and geometric proportionality. How can a creature without the ability to think abstractly enjoy its own beauty? How could a random process create symmetry and ratios. It’s as if someone created nature and filled it symmetry, the Golden ratio, geometric beauty, and created an observer to enjoy it all.jcfrk101_{October 5, 2019
October
10
Oct
5
05
2019
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply