Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Leibniz: “machines of nature” >> “all artificial automata”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

{Frost122585and Gerry Rzeppa started an interesting off topic train of thought on Leibniz and design of “machines of nature” vs “artificial automata” that is worth its own thread. I copied those posts below and will delete the others. DLH}
——————-
Frost122585
In Leibniz’s Monadology he talks about the difference between man made art and the art of God- which for me creates a very interesting problem for ID- one that could if described and understood correctly – lead to an even better understanding of Design in nature-

“Thus the organic body of each living being is a kind of divine machine or natural automaton, which infinitely surpasses all artificial automata. For a machine made by the skill of man is not a machine in each of its parts. For instance, the tooth of a brass wheel has parts or fragments which for us are not artificial products, and which do not have the special characteristics of the machine, for they give no indication of the use for which the wheel was intended. But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine art and ours.”


Here Leibniz is talking about the imperfection of things designed by man in comparison with the perfection of the design by God.

His argument would only grow stronger supported by today’s incredibly deep understanding of the human genome and the miniature machines that are derived from it that often display efficiency beyond anything human beings can design at the present.

The question is if Leibniz’s observation is correct and universally true than what can the imperfect design of man in comparison with the divine works of God tell us about what we can expect when making predictions about not only the evolutionary future of living things but also the limits of human design ability?
—————
Gerry Rzeppa
“But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine art and ours.”

Then I would say that one of the closest analogies to “the art of God” we have is found in computer programs, where each of the routines calls upon “lesser” routines, “ad infinitum”.
—————
Gerry Rzeppa
And that nobody has ever seen a working computer program that wasn’t designed.
—————
Frost122585
Gerry,
Interesting point- I think we have a reflection there but if the original program and machine is human made- and considering NFL theorems which seem also to point right back at Leibniz’s observations- I would say that there should be some other property that cannot be witnessed in the computer world- or the human design world.

The reason is that Leibniz’s point is that nature is NOT like God in that that God is universal and indivisible-

Perhaps the computer analogy can be inferred to fit the Leibniz picture but saying that as man is only like God but not complete- the computer software is thus not like man- that is it more divisible than man or at least not more complete then man is.

It makes sense because the basic axioms that form the complexity of the programs come from a mind (ours) which is as Gödel proved beyond formalization. I might add that incidentally Turing actually showed this was true for computers especially -> but Turing believed that man and the computer both were alike in their incompleteness.

My point is that if man’s incompleteness is like the computer’s then it is just a matter of degree- but I think that the difference between the computer and man is not just mathematically quantitative but mechanistically or substantively qualitative (that is as quality can be substance). I am just trying to find out how to define that quality.

This is closely related tot he specificity part in Dembski’s SC. That is how do we conceptually recognize the qualitative properties which form the sense or shape of specificity.

Work in this division of ID is seriously needed and could philosophically prove to be the final nail in the coffin for DE.

I might add that Leibniz believed that language itself should be both quantitative and qualitative as to match not just the sequence of logical steps that thought requires but also the shape or quality of the thought itself. Leibniz believed in a language that was like super hieroglyphics that he called Characteristica Universalis.

In his mind this is crudely and experimentally what it might look like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CU.jpg

Leibniz was a genius IMOP afterall he did discover the calculas (though at the same time as Newton from what a gather)- i can see why Godel thought that there was a conspiracy to hide Leibniz’s knowledge from the world-
would make a good movie anyways.
————————
Gerry Rzeppa
“I would say that there should be some other property that cannot be witnessed in the computer world- or the human design world.” – Frost

I agree. I only meant to say that we can gain insights into our Creator as we exercise His creative image of in us, with each of our activities providing different but complementary intuitions. Whenever we program, write, compose, draw, build, bake – in fact, whenever we “plan our work and work our plan” – we get a fresh perspective on the Mind of the Maker.

Regarding matters of degree, I’m personally persuaded that there are indeed radical qualitative differences in kind between species (and, of course, between contingent men and their self-existent and eternal Creator). I picture each of the “shared” properties of beings as a staircase – rather than an inclined plane – with insurmountable vertical barriers between the steps. The kind of consiousness possessed by a dog, for example, may appear on the same set of stairs as a human’s consciousness, but it does not, and never shall, appear on the same step.
—————–
Frost122585
I think I know what it could be- read Leibniz here…

84. It is this that enables spirits [or minds- esprits] to enter into a kind of fellowship with God, and brings it about that in relation to them He is not only what an inventor is to his machine (which is the relation of God to other created things), but also what a prince is to his subjects, and, indeed, what a father is to his children.

Here we see that we are the mirror image of God and that allows us to common with him. Perhaps the relationship between the soul and computers is what is lacking in the analogy. Computer according to the intuition, do not have souls- and therefore are not free to understand the intimate or spiritual element of man. This again leads us back to the question of “quality” and how we can formally perceive it. I think that the soul is not something that man can create. For the physical and logically or intellectual knowledge that goes into the design of a computer and its programs is merely altered matter and a second pressing of information originally conceived of by man- that is the computer cant design itself. But the matter that both computer and man share is not the same as the soul because the soul is not merely physical- it cannot be altered and therefore cannot be designed except for by the creator- that is it must be created and man cannot create he can only design.

Perhaps evidence of the souls infinity and indivisibleness is seen in the quantum vacuum that begins before the big bang- something is needed that is greater than matter to create and design it- but man does not posses this quality but posses the ability to perceive it as the soul is the mirror image of God’s infinity- the computer therefore cannot.
——————
Frost122585
The difference between men and animals is that they cannot precieve God or the creator. They have no contact with the divine and that is why man and only man is created in Gods image- because knows of the highest planes of thought such as the infinite- he knows of himself- “I think therefore I am.”
—————–
Gerry Rzeppa
“[God] is not only what an inventor is to his machine (which is the relation of God to other created things), but also what a prince is to his subjects, and, indeed, what a father is to his children.”

I agree again. It is not only when we make things that we gain insights into our God, but also when we befriend, marry, beget, parent, rule, etc.

It is sad that materialists, with their bottom-up view of everything, exclude themselves from every possible insight of this kind.

“Gödel proved anything that is formalized by man will be incomplete…”

And, by inference, that any system can only be fully understood from “one level up”. Men may one day fully understand animals, but animals will never fully understand even themselves.

Curiously, the Apostle suggests that one day we will fully understand not just that which is beneath us, but ourselves as well. As mere men I think my inference from Godel says “impossible”; but “in Christ”, it seems, we gain insights into ourselves that are otherwise unavailable to us. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known”, 1 Cor 13:12. “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God”, Luke 18:27.

I think the Christian doctrine of the Trinity also sheds some light here – even the Almighty, to understand Himself, requires something as close to “other” as unity can get. Mysterious stuff.

“…intuition is the ultimate source of knowing…

So much for the “scientific method”! But I agree.

“…and that it is not something that we can pass on to something beneath us.”

Again, I agree. The only thing in the natural world big enough to hold an iota of intuition is the mind of man.

Thanks for the Leibniz quotes. I’m going to study him further.
———————
Frost122585
Yeah, Leibniz is amazing- I went to the local library and checked out all the books on his personal writings- 6 books- about 15,000 pages- i will read all of them- in fact i am currently borrowing a copy of the tractatus and am probably gonna skip reading it for now.

I think Leibniz and Kant are the two greatest geniuses that I have seen- Newton is very interesting as well though.

I began reading him because I just finished 2 books on Kurt Gödel and a book containing his actual incompleteness theorem. In two of the books it talked about a conspiracy regarding Gödel and his belief that Leibniz was being edited by an intelligentsia to keep the world dumb-

So me being a lover of well thought out conspiracy theories thought _ “Gödel was nuts- no doubt about that- but still why would one of the greatest minds attribute such a conspiracy to Leibniz? The answer is clear ot me now- Leibniz had an absolutely amazing mind.” Once again, this would make a great movie!

In fact Leibniz wrote so many letters and papers that a lot of his work is yet to be published. Gödel was particularly suspect of Leibniz’s Characteristica Universalis – his pictorial language – because Gödel thought hat he would have developed the idea much more then the documents had read-

Everything is intriguing—

I don’t think the library is getting these books back! Which is maybe why his works seemed missing to Godel- that is everyone that reads them – keeps them!
——————-

Comments
bFast, Sometime it would be interesting to look at the case for an old earth and old biology. Perhaps at the same time we could discuss carbon-14. In the mean time, we can continue to agree about the evidence for ID and against a naturalistic explanation of that evidence.Paul Giem
March 6, 2008
March
03
Mar
6
06
2008
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
JPCollado:
Apollos wrote: “I don’t happen to be one who believes that our ability to explain existence, reality, and the origin and nature of the universe and life, is within our grasp. Precisely the same belief (or disbelief) that I more or less hold to. Call me a Naturalism Skeptic.
Ditto. Paul Giem:
I understand those who believe, but only by discounting their understanding of science.
I remember reading Ken Miller's book when he suggested a parallel between studying evolution and taking on the Faustian challenge. I have no trouble with those who would rather protect their soul than risk it to an incomplete science. Not all must fight this fight. I feel, however, that I must -- its been in my bones since before my tenth birthday. Paul Giem:
My investigations, especially into carbon-14 dating, have made belief in what I regard as the straightforward reading of Genesis 1-11 the easiest way to understand science.
My investigation into the claim of an old earth and old biology, a claim that seems to relegate carbon-14 to a very minor role, has convinced me that science's case for an old earth and old biology is very strong.bFast
March 4, 2008
March
03
Mar
4
04
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Apollos wrote: "I don’t happen to be one who believes that our ability to explain existence, reality, and the origin and nature of the universe and life, is within our grasp. Precisely the same belief (or disbelief) that I more or less hold to. Call me a Naturalism Skeptic. That is why ID is so appealing to me because of its recognition and emphasis of the great hurdles of naturalism that many scientists today seem to be in denial of.JPCollado
March 4, 2008
March
03
Mar
4
04
2008
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Since bFast is leaning toward Catholic theology, which presumably goes back to St. Peter (Cephas), will it not be too long before we hear people in this thread saying "I am of Paul", "I am of Apollos", "I am of Cephas", and "I am of Christ"? ;)Paul Giem
March 4, 2008
March
03
Mar
4
04
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
I understand those who believe, but only by discounting their understanding of science, as apparently Apollo has done.
Let me just say that I have very little confidence in the scientific establishment's ability to explain the sum of evidence macroscopically [read multiverses]. I have even less confidence in their willingness to explain evidence objectively [read macroevolution and chemical evolution]. The intense need to prove macroevolution and the naturalistic origins of life have soured me on accepting many of the conclusions of scientific observations, not necessarily the validity of the observations themselves. In other words, there's a lack of objectivity in science at large, and it allows for my skepticism of the need to submit Scripture to the authority of our current, biased, and limited understanding of contemporary evidence. I don't happen to be one who believes that our ability to explain existence, reality, and the origin and nature of the universe and life, is within our grasp.Apollos
March 4, 2008
March
03
Mar
4
04
2008
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Just as a quick aside - I think having a 'hands off' attitude towards Leibniz's (the man was brilliant, and this brilliance was not appreciated until well after his own time) views of life and the universe because Voltaire made fun of him is shortsighted to say the least.nullasalus
March 4, 2008
March
03
Mar
4
04
2008
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
Gerry, I can live with that last post (44). If it is understood like I think it should be, I can agree with it. bFast, Actually the Flood reduced the population to 8 (Noah, wife, 3 sons, 3 wives), as the early Chinese characters also indicate. I understand the reluctance to subjugate what appear to be the obvious conclusions of science to one's interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps one's interpretation is wrong. I also understand those that live in tension. I understand those who believe, but only by discounting their understanding of science, as apparently Apollo has done. I count myself fortunate that I have not (yet) had to make that choice. My investigations, especially into carbon-14 dating, have made belief in what I regard as the straightforward reading of Genesis 1-11 the easiest way to understand science. Others must follow their own conscience, and I would not change that, even if they are wrong (and I may be wrong instead or in addition). My only desire is that if they receive new information, or if they find clearer ways to think, that they continue to follow their conscience. I would hope to do the same.Paul Giem
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
StephenB - I understand and agree with much of what you've said. But I think I'm being misunderstood a bit. I'm certainly not saying that Vincent's will or memory or consiousness or emotions are the equivalent of our own; only that they are congruent enough that we might gain some insights into ourselves from the study of these "different steps on a shared staircase". As one can good learn things about the discipline and nurture of children by training horses. I think, for example, that the very attempt to make Vincent "love truth" or "grow in virtue", though ultimately unattainable, will nevertheless provide us with new and valuable insights into ourselves -- as the study of fixed-wing aircraft gives us a better understanding of birds. Think of it this way: once we've simulated all the human attributes that we can, whatever remains is what really makes our step on the staircase truly and radically different from the others.Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Frost, My choice to be YEC is a personal decision based on faith and my belief in the reliability of the Biblical account. It's also based on a belief that Genesis 1 is best interpreted in a manner similar to its presentation. In another 100 years we'll have an altogether different idea as to the age of the earth, and the universe. Our current projections about the direction of science and civilization will be at odds with reality, like they were in the first decade of the 20th century. In 200 years we'll be proclaiming how much we know, how far we've come, how much we've developed intellectually, and how clueless we were in 2008 about the nature of the universe and it's origin. We'll be certain of how close we really are to unlocking all existential mysteries through science. I've never been able to get my head around some of the dogmatism that revolves around time estimates in the universe. After General Relativity, we were made aware of the fluidity of time, and how subjective it is to different frames of reference. There's a good chance we each have a slightly different "now" than the other. The passage of time on the surface of a neutron star is dramatically different than it is in empty space. Thought experiments like the Twins Paradox illustrate how bizarre time really is in relation to velocity (and gravitation). Allowing that the earth and universe were supernaturally created, I think it's highly pretentious to claim we can understand what took place, and how, and even when, by poking things with a stick. I don't think we currently have the capacity to make sense of the nature of reality -- as time and space were being forged by God. We don't even know what we don't know, if you follow. The more I hear how close we are to figuring out the mysteries of existence, the less confidence I have in our current ability to explain anything about the nature of reality, the universe, or it's origin. The Biblical account happens to philosophically and scientifically be the best explanation we have: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Quantum mechanics isn't really understood, we just know the math works. Entangled particles can communicate faster than the speed of light. The Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice experiments are inexplicable. The presence of an observer bends and warps reality. Elementary particles exist in quantum superpositions until they are measured or observed. Reality is weird. Our best physical experiment for understanding sub-sub atomic particles is to smash atoms into one another, like a child might smash a watch to see what's inside. We have no scientific explanations for the origin or existence of the universe. Nobody can claim the slightest clue about how life came to be from a scientific point of view. I'm not anti-science; I love science, as much as a fellow of average intelligence can understand it. I just don't hold to the view that science can explain reality better than spirituality. I'm holding out for my own religious beliefs, and I expect (or hope) to be fully vindicated. I believe the Bible is a message from outside of time and space; and although often inexplicable itself, has the audacity to predict the future and record the fulfillment. When science can predict the future, I might give it a little more credit for explaining core realities. In 500 years we'll have made more remarkable discoveries about the universe. These discoveries may well be as universe shattering as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were. We'll have an entirely new perspective on reality that turns our current knowledge on it's head. We'll be amazed how we could have believed what we believe now about physical reality; or maybe we'll be more baffled and amazed than ever. Yet left to our own we will not see an end to disease, to famine, and to human kind's capacity for cruelty and apathy. We'll all still die. I'm certain that science will not solve these problems. I'm holding out for something better. ;-)Apollos
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Paul Giem:
Old life on earth requires the reinterpretation or denial of two or three chapters, and more if one does not take the Flood seriously.
I generally agree with you. At first I did not read you correctly when you said, "more if one does not take the Flood seriously." The OEC community, a-la reasons.org, does take the flood seriously -- claiming that there was a flood that reduced the population of humanity to 7. I am at a personal quandary because I cannot find scientific evidence for a literal Adam less than 10,000 years ago, I cannot find evidence for a flood that reduced humanity to 7 (though there is evidence of a significant flood that affected all of the world's coastal areas.) How does one blend two conflicting sources of information that both present as "truth"? I am not personally prepared to place science in subserviance to Biblical interpretation. Rather, I am currently moving to the direction of Catholic theology, taking at least the first 11 chapters of Geneis with a large dose of mythology and exaggeration. The only other option that I can see is to live in the ambiguity -- to live in a world where the two "truths" are fundimentally incompatible.bFast
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Gerry: Let me narrow the focus a little bit and offer another way of understanding the subject matter. In a way, I am changing definitions a bit, but I think the reason for it will become apparent. I submit that “intellect” and “will,” in their proper moral context, are faculties that cannot be transferred to inanimate objects, however sophisticated the technology. In humans, each faculty has a distinct function that is, nevertheless, related to the other. The function of the mind is to discover and know what is true; the object of the will is to love and move toward what is good. In humans, character forms to the extent that these two faculties facilitate moral development. It is only in the moral arena that free will has any significance or even any reality. Neither computers nor animals can enter into that world, therefore, any apparent resemblance they have with humans is just that, apparent. Each faculty has a job to do. The intellect grasps a moral principle or proposition and the will decides whether or not it likes the idea and will go along with it. A human is moral if [A] his intellect apprehends a moral truth and [B] he conforms his will to that moral truth. Or, to put it another way, the mind provides the “target” and the “will” shoots the arrow. The intellect can present a “target” proposition to the will, and the will can decide on its own behalf whether or not it would prefer not to “shoot the arrow.” On the one hand, for example, an individual may know that it is a good thing to protect the good name of others and refrain from gossip and slander. On the other hand, he can choose to hate that moral truth because he perceives it as an unnecessary imposition on his right to free expression. He can learn to love the act of destroying someone else’s reputation and it and even look forward to it as a fun thing to do. In other words, he can misuse and pervert his will. Unlike humans, computers cannot be programmed to love or hate truth. Their “character,” if we can make such a stretch, forms randomly, not in accordance with the choices they have made. Unlike humans, they can’t grow in virtue, learn courage, or acquire anything similar to wisdom. Unlike humans, they can’t darken their intellect or degrade their will by making bad choices, nor can they illuminate their intellect or strengthen their will by making good choices. Computers don’t have noble or base motives; they don’t dream, hope, or despair. They cannot pursue an individual destiny in the context of a moral universe. There is no opportunity to display a heroic virtue or fall into a base vice, because there is no moral test to pass. If there is no moral test to pass, then there is nothing on which to exercise the will. Indeed, God created [A] a subjective moral will, [B] an objective moral universe to test it, and [C] an ontological connection between the two. A computer cannot be equipped with [A] in the absence of [B] and [C].StephenB
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Paul (39) - Rather than belabor the thing, let me just make one remark regarding Vincent's "consciousness". Introspection reveals that there is something I call "me" that appears to be monitoring, for lack of a better term, "the rest of me". For example, "I" know that "the rest of me" is working on this post: thinking, typing, anticipating what you're response will be, etc. It seems to me that the closest simulation that we can produce of this state of affairs is to have one "thread" of a program monitor all of the program's other threads -- and if we allow this special thread to communicate with the outside world regarding what "the rest of program" is doing, we get the appearance of consciousness: an awareness of what is going on, both inside and outside of Vincent's "person". As far as being "playful" here, I assure you that I'm as serious about this particular activity as a child learning to jump rope. I nearly bite my tongue off almost every day... Incidently, I'm the inventor of the Plain English programming language and my company has been working on a unique approach to a "HAL 9000"-like machine for several years now. Write me directly (help@osmosian.com) if you're at all interested in that sort of serious play.Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Gerry, (28) No actually your call. If you still believe that you are right, and that it is important to this discussion, then keep going. My reading was that you were being somewhat playful, in which case it probably should end for now. Your response to Frost (34) was very good. It can be augmented by data in this book, some of which of which is on the internet here and here. DaveScot, The age of the universe is not necessarily an objection to YEC. One can postulate a young earth, and even a young solar system, without postulating a young universe. An old universe requires the explaining, or explaining away or ignoring, of only two Hebrew words. Old life on earth requires the reinterpretation or denial of two or three chapters, and more if one does not take the Flood seriously. I know of several YEC's that are not YUC's. The objection that the universe is old is only valid against YUC's. I am currently a YEC but not a YUC. I can feel the weight of your objections. Two things give me pause before saying that YUC's are stupid. First, we may be looking at relativistic effects. Schroeder goes in one direction, but Russell Humphreys in another on this. Second, I've already seen the scientific establishment blow it on the eternity of the universe, the origin of life, on the evolvability of complexity (Behe, in spite of our differences in models, puts the edge of evolution almost precisely where I had previously placed it), and, if the data on carbon-14 holds up, the age of life on earth. YEC's have even made strides in explaining a young earth given radiometric dating. Saying that YUC's can't possibly be right about the universe is a little too dogmatic for me at present.Paul Giem
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
The builder of a house doesn't have to live in it during the construction process.Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
"The difference between an artist painting flowers before the sun and God creating the earth before the sun is that the former doesn’t violate any basic laws of physics while the latter does." - DaveScot So? Where is it written that the "laws of physics" were established first, and the rest of creation laboriously assembled within that limited framework? Today's designers of virtual worlds typically create their characters, the environment, and the formulae that express the "rules" for behavior in concert, not sequence. Should the Designer of Actual Worlds be restricted in His techniques more than they?Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Re #30: "I find it hard to understand how one could be a young earth creationist this day and age. Is there a particular scientific source that you base your beliefs upon?" Perhaps the primary basis for a "young" earth is the historical documentation. From a scientific perspective, it may not be possible to demonstrate conclusively the age of the earth: after all, we can't go back in time and verify whatever assumptions are brought to bear. So, in effect, the question of age may be appropriately addressed to any recorded history before being handed over to science. However, there are scientific observations that support the historical data. One example: the presence of Carbon-14 in fossils believed to be old enough that the radioactive carbon ought to have completely decayed. Another example: Based on the observed decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, it has been posited that the field would be strong enough to melt the earth if its decay were extrapolated backward more than about 20,000 years. These examples are taken from articles on well-known YEC Web sites, written by such scientists as John Baumgardner and Russell Humphreys. This forum is about Intelligent Design, and it's been seen how incredulous of ID some are in the scientific community. Perhaps, then, ID proponents are in a position to appreciate the nature of the reception a position contrary to scientific orthodoxy is likely to receive. YEC may or may not be scientifically valid; however, if it were, where would one expect to learn the evidence of this?Rick Toews
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Gerry re; estimated age of the universe 5B to 14B years isn't a big change within the range of possible answers. Consider that the true age of the universe could be anywhere from 6000 years to an infinite number of years. On that scale the difference between 5B and 14B is quite small. They're both still in the same ballpark. Redshift of light due to relative motion is experimentally confirmed to the proverbial 9th decimal point and is used in all kinds of practical applications from Doppler radar to the global positioning system. Redshift due to aging of photons has no experimental confirmation at all that I'm aware of. The difference between an artist painting flowers before the sun and God creating the earth before the sun is that the former doesn't violate any basic laws of physics while the latter does. If we want to compare the biblical creation story to actual human creation let's look at how a custom home is created. It might take an architect 6 days to create the blueprints and he can do it any order he wants while actually building the house described by the blueprints might take a year and in that case things have to be done in a more constrained order - for instance you can't hang windows and doors before the house has been framed but in the blueprint stage it's quite common to position doors and windows before drawing the framing. Maybe the 6 days of Genesis is how long it took God to conceptualize the universe while actually building it took much longer and the building process was more constrained than the design process - just like in the creation of a custom home. There's also the possibility that the universe is like a software construct. Software itself has no physical existence - it requires something physical to store and execute it but the software construct itself is an abstract with no mass or energy. It's just information. In the creation of software the design and even the instantiation can be top-down, bottom-up, or any combination thereof. This is unlike a custom home where the design process can be any combination of top-down or bottom-up but the instantiation process must be largely bottom-up. DaveScot
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Nice points Gerry. All of them.Frost122585
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
Frost - It seems to me that all we have regarding origins is contradictory theories based on scanty data, revelation, and a few clues from design. Regarding the theories, they all seem rather speculative to me. Hubble says the red-shift of starlight is due to movement of the stars, while Hoyle says it's due to the light aging. Radiometric daters frequently get contrary results and typically exclude "anomalous" data from their findings. And so forth. Who should we believe? The very same concensus that has all but forced the monotonous drone of random mutation and natural selection upon us? Regarding revelation, we are faced with the troublesome matter of interpretation. All language is metaphorical, but some metaphors are more figurative than others. This subject is really too big for the little box I'm typing in. But from design we can, I think, garner some very important insights. We know how we go about designing and building things, and -- if you accept that we are made in our Creator's image for the express purpose of understanding Him better -- we can make some straightforward extrapolations of our own. 1. When we create, we typically do so in stages. Building a house, for example, we begin with the foundation, then assemble the frame, etc. Note that the stages are typically not continuous, but have well-defined beginnings and endings. 2. When we create, we expect that the construction process will be relatively short compared with the period during which the creation is used. We don't, for example, spend 100 years constructing a tent for a weekend camping trip. 3. When we create, we frequently produce things out-of-sequence. A basement floor, for example, may be poured after the roof of the house has been completed; an artist might paint the flowers before he puts the sun in the sky (working with an alternate light source the whole time). 4. When we create, we typically produce things with the appearance of age. Characters in our novels, houses, trees, and individuals in our paintings, and virtual players in our computer games are just a few examples. The tires on my car may actually be several years older than the doors. And so forth. I think if we approach both revelation and the rest of the universe from any and all of the creative perspectives that we have experience with -- as artists, bakers, carpenters, musicians, poets, writers, etc, as well as narrow-minded scientists of a linear leaning -- we'll begin to see things not only in a different light, but more clearly as well.Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
I agree that extrapolated mathematics essentially takes us where ever we wish to go- I think the same kind of thing goes into categorizing fossils- say of ape or man- The questions that I have regarding YEC have to do with the very evidence that man did have an ape like ancestor- and that coupled with the obvious density of the earth and its strata and the time it would intuitively take for mountains and oceans to form. It is fine, and a good answer, to say that it did happen in the equivalent of millions of years- as Schroeder says- but that it happened with in the modern 6 days due to the initial rate of time expansion- if you can prove that with the ever suspicious math and physics that is. But a literal interpretation of the bible is difficult for me not simply because of the miracles- but because in some excerpts it seems to be speaking analogously about the spirit "if you had an ounce of faith you could move a mountain" vs other times it is being literal "the six days of creation" its all fascinating enough- and I DO NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE BIBLE BEING ACCURATE- So don’t criticize my skepticism or indifference because it is not the truth of the text that I am critiquing - but merely the sources from which one derives their beliefs. If its just the bible - fair enough, thaat fine for you - but that’s not good enough to be considered the lone source for the scientifically rigorous theory of ID. My question to Apollo was "is there a specific scientificly based reference that you have encountered that leads you to the acceptance of YEC" It was not a critique of his belief, with the exception of pointing out that it is a minority- it was from a perspective of curiosity. I asked it because I was curious why a contributor to an ID web blog would also fallow YEC- being that ID is very much science based- I wondered if Apollo had any good scientific sources supporting his belief in YEC. Apollo is a believer and I am more or less uncommitted given my skepticism of modern science and its methods and my inability to reconcile all the texts of the bible with all of the evidence that I have been exposed to.Frost122585
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
When I was a kid, the universe was 5 billion years old; by the time I graduated from college, it had aged an additional 8.7 billion years. I think somebody's speculating here - and wildly so.Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
"I find it hard to understand how one could be a young earth creationist in this day and age. - Frost Well, I find it hard to believe how easily most folks swallow ridiculously extreme extrapolations based on a real paucity of data and a ludicrous plethora of unsubstantiated assumptions. Tell me with certainty about next week's weather, or what was happening 100 years ago on the spot where my house now stands, or even what you were doing just 10 years ago this very day -- then try to keep a straight face when you ask me to believe that someone knows what happened 0.00000001 seconds after the purported "big bang".Gerry Rzeppa
March 3, 2008
March
03
Mar
3
03
2008
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
Apollos, I find it hard to uderstand how one could be a young earth creationist this day and age. Is there a particular scientific source that you base your beliefs upon?Frost122585
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
In regards to the video that i posted- if your short on time he doesn't get to the math until about *50 mins.Frost122585
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
"You still haven’t answered my last objections... C’mon, just give it up. This is just silly..." - Paul Giem So should I take the time to answer your objections, or not? Your call.Gerry Rzeppa
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
Jerry, For my part, I've never noticed a reluctance to criticize YEC on this blog, nor certain other Christian fundamentalist viewpoints. I've been a guest here for at least a year now. I was pleased to find a site with the minerals to promote its viewpoint and welcome differing religious and philosophical views (materialism included) and not be quick to jump on the ostracization bandwagon in order to score points with religious bigots -- despite the fact that they hold the reigns of power in the scientific establishment. I accept that I'm in the minority on this blog. YEC is a minority view among ID advocates, as far as I can tell. I also accept that my belief does not square with the current interpretation of the scientific evidence. I'm fine with that, as distasteful as it is to some. As for religious opinions, we all pick our battles. I was actually considering offering Gerry my understanding of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (it's generally misunderstood I think) but your comments in response to him were more interesting to me. It has nothing to do with compassion, it's about understanding what is written in scripture. Christian compassion can be defined by not wanting to see anyone in hell, but for all to come to salvation (2Pe 3:9). I'm interested in your view regarding ID and evolution. Regarding it's paradigms (SC/CSI, IC, Privileged Planet) what would change, or become invalid, if macroevolution and Old Earth were to be disproven? I understand that the debate would end -- each of the above accepted as axioms practically instantly -- but would ID be invalidated in any way, beyond the fact that the need for the "struggle" would be done away with? Just because IC would be accepted without all the mental anguish associated with it by materialists (TEs and atheists alike) doesn't mean it would prove illogical or invalid. The same could be said for design inferences in general, and CSI. The specified complexity is still there, regardless of whether there appears a pressing need to define it. If you've commented on this already and I missed it, a pointer will suffice. Peace.Apollos
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
In regards to the YECs and the IDs- I see no reason why the two should be at odds- Half of ID is showing the limits of evolution- that is at what point the theory becomes inadequate. Even if YECs reject the mainstream scientific approach to origins they can still use the scientific arguments advanced by ID proponents to help their case. Remember even YEC claims to be scientific and the objective physical truth- therefore there is no reason why they wouldn't benefit from ID science. Take Michael Behe's latest book Edge of Evolution- even if they reject his dates for the age of the earth and his belief in common descent- they can then take his criticism of DE and use it against DE but only add the clause that they think that Behe's belief in common descent and the age of the earth will also be disproved one day as well.- but until then Behe needs to fallow the science where it leads if he wants to be taken seriously. I think right now to be a real ID theorist you have to be in the mainstream of science and shouldn't be in the YEC camp- at least as far as doing scientific work is concerned- but to be a young earth creationist you can be in both camps. Of course I have read several books by Gerald Schroeder who claims that since dates of the earth are done with radioactive carbon dating- and that the flow of the creation f the universe and the earth happened very quickly after the big bang- that the dating shows millions of years but in fact it all could have happened in 6 modern days. I always found the argument compelling to a certain extent- how scientific it is I cannot evaluate because i am not a scientist- nonetheless perhaps it represents where YEC and ID meet. For the record both of Schroeder's books are good "The Science of God" and "The Hidden Face of God." Here is a video description of his theory- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538&q=gerald+schroeder&total=74&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Go to 19 mins.Frost122585
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
Gerry Rzeppa, You still haven't answered my last objections (in 12). Is my clockwork toy, which I will call Mac Hine, also conscious, since it can duplicate the output of your computer and program? If we define consciousness by its results, can we say that used car salesmen or sexual predators have no consciousness of their plans, since until the moment they spring the trap they give no signs of having any intention to do so? Are you arguing that a computer without even programming for inner experience has one? Finally, would you have any qualms about throwing Vincent at an advancing mountain lion? Would you do the same with your child, or your dog? Would you do so with Mac Hine? C'mon,just give it up. This is just silly; about as silly as that exegesis of the unpardonable sin text.Paul Giem
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Jack, I will take a stab at a time. The origin of birds, about 140 million years ago was a design event. That is about when they first appeared. I know the conventional wisdom amongst the evolutionary biology crowd is that birds evolved from a little dinosaur. But birds required so many specialized features that it boggles the mind how they all came together so they could fly. They are all geared to flying but since Darwinian processes do not anticipate, there is no reason for them to be selected. It is a puzzlement.jerry
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
"When I invoke my will, I do so with my conscious mind..." - bFast And so does Vincent. As described, his decisions are based, like ours, on his moment-by-moment conscious awareness of the weather, on his understanding of different aspects of artistic technique (which he can consciously elucidate when asked), and on his conscious recall of earlier activities which he typically reviews as part of his decision making process. "Does a computer rendering a 'pretend to emote — call the random number generator' constitute real emotions? I think not." - bFast But that's not how Vincent's emotions work. His current mood is the result of various internal and external variables, as our moods are -- like the state of the weather and what he's been "up to" all day. "Well, one thing for sure, vincent doesn’t make the decision that 'this is a good one' or 'this one didn’t turn out so great'. I guess this could be simulated... with a formal image balance algorithm..." - bFast Now you're getting the idea! "However that human sense of satisfaction at a cool product just wouldn’t be there. - bFast Unless his maker constructed him such that his moods, like ours, were also dependent on the number of recent "successes" he acheived. His elation would be reflected, I imagine, in a spurt of additional energy and increased productivity. I must say that the objections raised to my little experiment so far remind me of the man who said to the Wright Brothers, "You'll never learn anything about flying with that kind of thing -- the wings don't even flap."Gerry Rzeppa
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply