At Mind Matters News: 5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 28, 2021

Atheism, Big Bang, Intelligent Design, theism}

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

In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science:

At this point in the “Does God exist?” debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that theaw propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnor’s turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinas’s First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God).
No matter, they agreed to keep talking. The conversation continues to be somewhat rambunctious, thus has been condensed for print:
News, “5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe” at Mind Matters News

Michael Egnor: Well, again, singularities are supernatural. They are not natural.

Matt Dillahunty: I would argue that the singularity as described is natural. It is the entirety of the natural universe. [00:57:00]

Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?

Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-

Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …

[Things became quite heated at this point.]

Matt Dillahunty: [00:58:00] I’ve tried to answer it, every time I open my … Say one more [bleep]…

Next: Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s Egnor’s accusation. Stay tuned.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.

4. Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

You may also wish to read:

Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates “incredibly valuable,” he is — despite much urging — making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about God’s existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. That’s partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor)

Comments

Good stuff ET. IMHO your #116 is a thing of beauty. However I expect Viola & co to completely ignore it as per usual.Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
I think some would say that Intelligent Design is exactly such an example. More specifically, I think some who have frequented UD would say that BA himself is a very good example.
Hearsay from morons is just entertainment.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Hank Racette:
But one can not take the subset of all encoded information that we *know* comes from intelligence and, extrapolating from that experience, conclude that the rest of it must have come from intelligence as well.
1- It is a LARGE subset as the genetic code is the same throughout life (yes there are variations). So its thousands vs 1. 2- The genetic code and intelligence goes hand-in-hand as it only exists in living organisms. 3- There aren't any other known cause for coded information processing systems
He is on no firmer ground making that argument than if he pointed out that, since all artificial satellites are the product of intelligence, it follows that the moon must be as well, since we don’t really know how it got there.
That doesn't follow as the Moon doesn't have the same qualities as artificial satellites. But if one reads "the Privileged Planet" the Moon and Earth were intelligently designed.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Viola:
I think some would say that Intelligent Design is exactly such an example. More specifically, I think some who have frequented UD would say that BA himself is a very good example.
And I think that some would say that some who have frequented UD are utterly bereft of their wits. :)Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

1- The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. 2- There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. 3- There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can do so. 4- That claim can be dismissed. Hitchens 101. 5- There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition 6- Therefore using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships in accordance with Newton's 4 rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code was the result of intelligent design. Science 101 7- That scientific inference can be falsified by someone demonstrating that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Until then those making that claim can be dismissed.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
I do think that “intelligence” is not very well defined in this discussion. I think most people (Meyer says so explicitly) consider intelligence the act of a conscious, willful, entity, using ourselves as the model. However, the argument for this is similar to the one about genetics: it has a circular nature. It may be that “intelligence” has a different nature which manifests itself in us in a human way, but manifests itself more broadly in the universe in different ways.
Intelligence has been very well defined in this discussion. And no, the argument is not circular. Again, the argument is based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. People like Viola Lee and Racette would make terrible investigators. That means they would make terrible scientists.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Origenes On Vacation comment at 108 is well worth repeating,,, "A clear example of distorting science is claiming that Intelligent Design is an attempt to distort science and backing your claim up with the unfounded assumption that human intelligence exhausts intelligence." Very well put,,,, and I almost missed that comment. :)bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Racette:
But wait. That is – at best – a circular argument. If we include DNA in our initial inventory of “functional” information, then it’s no longer our uniform and repeated experience that such information is the product of intelligence.
Given that we do not see an adequate demonstration by a non-intelligent DNA code producer, why would including DNA code in the initial inventory change the fact that it is our uniform and repeated experience that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to generate such functional information? You are simply not making sense. Stephen Meyer:
Recall that my main argument in Darwin’s Doubt is that the origin of the genetic (and epigenetic) information necessary to produce the novel forms of animal life that arose in the Cambrian period is best explained by intelligent design. To make this case, I showed first that neither the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations, nor more recently proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change (such as self-organization, neutral evolution, natural genetic engineering, etc. — see Darwin’s Doubt, Chapters 15-16) are sufficient to generate the biological information that arises in the Cambrian explosion. Instead, I show — based upon our uniform and repeated experience — that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to generate the functional information of the kind that is present in biological systems (and that arises with the Cambrian animals). Thus, I conclude that the action of a designing intelligence provides the best (“most causally adequate”) explanation for the origin of that information.
Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

And yet you still presented no evidence for your false claim of ID, or me, distorting the science. i.e. despite your denial, your argument, as it stands right now, boils down to a general ad hominem without you actually ever engaging my argument. Which. I remind, my argument is that atheists have had to 'distort science' far more than Christians have ever had to in order for them to maintain their atheistic beliefs. Again, the comparison between the worldviews, and the scientific evidence we now have in hand, is not even close:
Comparison of Theistic Predictions to Materialistic Predictions with the scientific evidence we now have in hand https://docs.google.com/document/d/15i87oT7IkCI0W0Hxg5mZ_8FP23MG_GTFrR0zvgKH9zU/edit 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

You're not understanding "ad hominem" correctly, BA. I'm not attacking your character: I'm just saying that I disagree with you about the extent to which you think science, as you understand it, integrates with your religious beliefs: I think you shoehorn lots of science into your religious beliefs. That's a critique and a criticism, but that doesn't make it "ad hominem". Ad hominem means to dismiss an argument by referring to an irrelevant characteristic of the person making the argument. I'm not doing that: I'm just saying you're wrong about much of what you believe. Similarly, I don't think I'm "slurring" ID. I am criticizing an aspect of ID such as the one being presented by Meyer: that certain scientific issues point to a theistic Christian-like God. I don't think criticism is a "quick way to get banned", is it?Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

VL slurs ID as a whole and issues an ad hominem against me personally. VL at 106: "I think some would say that Intelligent Design is exactly such an example (of distorting science). More specifically, I think some who have frequented UD would say that BA himself is a very good example." And your specific evidence for ID, (and me), distorting science is what exactly??? A general slur against ID generally and a blatant ad hominem against me personally??? Perhaps you are unaware of the long history that Darwinian atheists have on this site of resorting to ad hominem attacks when they are called on the fact that they have no actual real time empirical evidence to support their grandiose claims? (I might also add that ad hominem is the quickest way to get banned from UD)
Logical Fallacies - ad hominem You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Hi Seekers. I'm not quite sure which of my comments you are referring to. I don't think I've ever said a design inference concerning intelligence should be ruled out a priori, and I don't think the quote of Racette's that I posted at 32 implies that. I do think that "intelligence" is not very well defined in this discussion. I think most people (Meyer says so explicitly) consider intelligence the act of a conscious, willful, entity, using ourselves as the model. However, the argument for this is similar to the one about genetics: it has a circular nature. It may be that "intelligence" has a different nature which manifests itself in us in a human way, but manifests itself more broadly in the universe in different ways. P.S. I have just now seen a few posts by both Racette and Seekers that seem to have appeared after I had read that part of the thread, probably because they were held in moderation for a bit, notably 72, 76, and 81. I think they are all worth reading.Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

A clear example of distorting science is claiming that Intelligent Design is an attempt to distort science and backing your claim up with the unfounded assumption that human intelligence exhausts intelligence. A specimen of this phenomenon:
(On the other hand, it does seem to me that Meyer would be more consistent if he argued that, since every instance of encoded information of which we’re aware is actually man-made, DNA must also be man-made. But that would be an even more absurd argument.)
Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee, Science isn’t a set of rules or beliefs, it’s a method of understanding the world around us. With that said, why should a design inference be ruled out a priori? Shouldn’t “science” explore all possible avenue’s to arrive at the best explanation for the world and everything in it?Seekers_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

BA writes, "As to the claim of ‘distorting science’, I would like to know exactly what instances of ‘distorting science’ that Hank is referring to? Aside from Young Earth Creationists, (which is a relatively new movement within Christianity), I can think of no other instances where some Christians have tried to ‘distort science’ in order to make the scientific evidence fit their beliefs." I think some would say that Intelligent Design is exactly such an example. More specifically, I think some who have frequented UD would say that BA himself is a very good example.Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your reply, Hank. As with others who've commented since yours, I think the bad science is on your side. Although you wouldn't be surprised by my conclusion, it's clear that the inference to the best explanation is that the source is intelligence. My side is not the side having to contort away from the obvious. Yours is. Although the intelligent source from the code doesn't get you to the Christian God, there is much in science that does, as BA77 and many others so often elucidate here. Everything fits together perfectly, and Jesus Christ is right at the center of it all. The science isn't distorted at all, when the distorted lenses of selective hyperskeptical agnosticism/atheism are removed. I am glad that you're at peace. And I appreciate your reply.AnimatedDust_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Racette:
Faith deserves better than to be founded on bad science, in my opinion.
You are absolutely right. And as Bornagain77 points out, your statement certainly applies to atheists.Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Hank Racette at 100 states,
My objection to scientific apologetics is that I think it undermines faith while often distorting science.,,, Faith deserves better than to be founded on bad science, in my opinion.
Funny that my faith, the more have learned about the actual science, has been greatly strengthened by science. As to the claim of 'distorting science', I would like to know exactly what instances of 'distorting science' that Hank is referring to? Aside from Young Earth Creationists, (which is a relatively new movement within Christianity), I can think of no other instances where some Christians have tried to 'distort science' in order to make the scientific evidence fit their beliefs. On the other hand, I can think of numerous instances where Atheists have resorted to 'distorting science' to try to make the scientific evidence for their beliefs. Thus, if anyone's faith is based upon 'bad science', indeed if anyone's faith is crucially dependent upon bad science, it is certainly the atheist whose faith is crucially dependent upon bad science, not the Christian Theist. Perhaps Hank would like to go tit for tat in showing examples of Atheists and Christians 'distorting science' in order to try to make the scientific evidence fit their a-priori beliefs? My bet is that that comparison is not going to end like he believes it will.
Comparison of Theistic Predictions to Materialistic Predictions with the scientific evidence we now have in hand https://docs.google.com/document/d/15i87oT7IkCI0W0Hxg5mZ_8FP23MG_GTFrR0zvgKH9zU/edit 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Re 100: excellent comment, Hank. I’m sure the details of my beliefs might differ some, but basically I agree with you. I have religious friends who think attempts such as Meyer’s are both bad science and bad theology: a misguided attempt to bolster faith through inappropriate means.Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Hank Racette, I’ve gone over your comments here on UD and PT to get a better understanding of your position on this particular topic. from what I’m understanding, is that the coded information of which we know the source, you would agree that the source of which is intelligence. Correct? But your disagreement with Meyer’s argument could be summed up as we simply don’t know the source of the coded information embedded in DNA, and we shouldn’t rule out a possible naturalist explanation yes?Seekers_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Animated Dust, Regarding your comment #94: I can't and won't speak for Viola, but I'll just say that I'm quite at peace with the world as it appears to me. I'm an agnostic, I like religion, I know my Bible and enjoy much of it, and I appreciate the natural world and our struggle to learn about it. I never want to dissuade anyone from faith. My objection to scientific apologetics is that I think it undermines faith while often distorting science. I encourage people of faith to focus on the questions for which religion has good answers and science offers little, questions of purpose and meaning, compassion, mercy, love, generosity, charity, forgiveness. When science touches on these things it is sterile and clinical. Religion embraces them and gives them rich meaning. Faith deserves better than to be founded on bad science, in my opinion.Hank Racette_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

VL@80: With this, you are clearly expressing your preference for those of like mind who wish to wallow in the forlorn hope that Racette and yourselves have for a cause other than intelligence for the architecture of the universe. Again, I ask you why that is. The inference is so easy to infer upward to intelligence. Because you know it’s not human intelligence, does that bring you too dangerously close to God? If God is the ultimate author of the universe, what power do you perceive that you are wielding in opposition to that by arguing against it? Does that move anything one Planck length closer to the universe you prefer? When you die, what is reality will be what it is. Why do you continue to fight? You aren’t going to get the answers you want here. I suppose that’s why you bailed last time. There’s another term for what you are doing. Ostriches love to do it. My suggestion is, pull it out, and stop raging against reality.AnimatedDust_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

But, besides believing we are 'made in the image of God' being a necessary presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science, and which also lays at the continued success of modern science, do we have any other scientific evidence that we can appeal to that might support the Christian's belief that we are made 'in the image of God'? Yes we do! Although the supposed genetic and fossil evidence for human evolution is far more illusory and misleading than many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinists, the one place that even leading evolutionists themselves honestly admit that they have no realistic clue how a particular human trait could have possibly evolved is with human language. In 2014, a veritable who’s who list of leading ‘Darwinian’ experts in the area of language research authored a paper in which they honestly admitted that they have, "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
That explaining the origin of human language would be especially problematic for Darwinists is very interesting to look at since it is precisely our ability to create and communicate information, and more specifically, our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates, that has allowed humans to become 'masters of the planet.' In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not via brute force, but simply by our unique ability to create and communicate information and to, more specifically, infuse immaterial information into material substrates in order to create, (i.e. intelligently design), objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also creating objects merely for our pleasure. What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’ than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’, not via brute force as is presupposed in Darwinian thinking, but precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates. Of course, a more convincing proof that we are made 'in the image of God' could be if God Himself became a man, and then preformed miracles such as walking on water, raising the dead, defeating death itself on a cross, to demonstrate His completely mastery over nature.. And that just so happens to be precisely the proof that we are made 'in the image of God' that is claimed within Christianity.
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing stronger. (Timeline of facts) - November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
Verses
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Philippians 2:6-11 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
bornagain77_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Origenes On Vacation at 86 succinctly states: "Racette labours under the assumption that human intelligence exhausts intelligence, otherwise his writing doesn’t make any sense." Bingo, and he is, apparently, also laboring under the same exact, (and false), theological presupposition that Darwin himself labored under, Namely, Racette is apparently presupposing that we have no right whatsoever to believe that God creates in ways that are analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. As Darwin himself rhetorically asked in response to 'Paley's eye argument', "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?’
Charles Darwin’s use of theology in theOrigin of Species - Stephen Dilley - 2011 Excerpt page 46: "Unsurprisingly, Darwin’s response to Paley’s eye argument became a ‘centrepiece ’ of a chapter dedicated to addressing the strongest objections to evolutionary theory.77 Darwin noted that it seemed prima facie ‘absurd in the highest possible degree’ that an organ as intricate as the eye ‘could have been formed by natural selection’.78 Instead, he wrote,
"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrumenthas been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process."79
Darwin offered two questions as an immediate reply, writing in the very next sentences, ‘But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?’80 Although Darwin’s brevity makes interpretation dif?cult, his questions implied that the analogy between humans and God broke down. Human beings, he proposed, cannot know that their own causal powers are relevantly similar to the Creator’s causal powers. Apparently, such knowledge was beyond human ken.81 Darwin asked rhetorically what ‘right’ humans have for this analogy – that is, what sound basis was there to think that human beings can know such a thing about God’s ‘intellectual powers’? His questions suggested that justi?cation for the vertebrate-eye argument failed because certain features of God’s nature, such as His creative power, were inaccessible to human beings.82 Thus Darwin’s negative rebuttal of the vertebrate-eye argument consisted of unmistakable theological ideas about human epistemology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227159863_Charles_Darwin%27s_use_of_theology_in_the_Origin_of_Species
And while Darwin's use of faulty theological presuppositions, (and the continued use of faulty theological presuppositions today), is certainly problematic enough for those who erroneously hold 'Methodological Naturalism' as the supposed 'ground rule' of science,,,,
Devil’s Chaplain: Evolution as a “Theological Research Program” Michael Flannery - September 10, 2021 Excerpt: Hunter answers claims of Darwinian orthodoxy. They are as follows: Darwin’s religious views preceded (not followed) his transmutation ideas; Darwin’s theological premises are essential (not peripheral) to his argument; Darwin’s references to theology attach direct significance to the theory itself — he is not practicing reductio theology, employing it merely for its contrastive heuristic effect — the theology and the theory are inextricably intertwined; the epistemic assistance received from theology is central to the theory itself (the “scientific” evidence marshalled on its behalf is pretty thin); and finally, Darwin’s theological claims persisted well into the period of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (1930s and ’40s) and after. Readers should examine the article itself to see how Hunter establishes each point, all supported with extensive references. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/devils-chaplain-evolution-as-a-theological-research-program/ Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
,,,, And while the use of faulty theological presuppositions by Darwin and his followers is certainly problematic enough for Darwinian atheists who falsely hold, via their erroneous assumption of 'Methodological Naturalism', that God has no place in our scientific explanations, Darwin's specific faulty theological presupposition that we have no "right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man" is especially problematic since that specific theological presupposition that we are 'made in the image of God' was, in fact, an essential and crucial presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science itself. Stephen Meyer, in chapter 1 of his book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis', lists the three essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science as such,
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
In short, if we did not first assume that the universe is the product of a rational Mind, and that we ourselves, being made 'in the image of God', could possibly dare to understand the rationality that was, and is, imparted onto the universe by that rational Mind, then modern science itself would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray - August 14, 2014 Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature. The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/the_truth_about_science_and_religion.html The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf
Thus, in so far as we take Darwin's faulty theological presupposition seriously, i.e. that we have no "right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man", then we find that that specific faulty theological presupposition of Darwin actually undermines the scientific method itself in that it denies the necessary presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science, and which also continues to be, very much, a necessary presupposition for the continued success of modern science. i.e. We, being made 'in the image of God', can dare understand the rationality that is imparted by God onto the universe.bornagain77_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

KF #88
As to confining intelligence to computational, GIGO driven substrates, that cannot account for the required freedom to exhibit true intelligence.
Indeed. Such a blind process, which is the very best materialism has to offer wrt intelligence, does not account for personal control and responsibility. If materialism is true and our thoughts actions do not originate from us, but instead are the consequence of laws of physics and events long before we were born, then, in fact, we are not thinking. Then what we experience as 'understanding' is in fact an untrustworthy sensation forced upon us by laws of physics (which are unconcerned with logic and truth) and events we also do not control. If materialism is true, then rationality does not exist.Origenes on vacation_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

F/N: On the original OP issue, I suggest the pivot is to understand logic of being and contingent vs necessary being. In that context cause emerges as factors that enabe a being C in a world W, but which being absent in neighbour W' lead to C's absence. Consider the fire tetrahedron and a fire, without an adequate cluster: fuel, oxidiser, heat, combustion chain rxn, no fire can begin or be sustained. By contrast, there is no distinct possible world without two-ness in it, nor one where 2 began or can cease. 2 is part of the framework for any possible world and is a necessary entity antecedent to causes which are within worlds. Add that were there ever utter non being, such having no causal factors, such true nothingness would forever obtain. That is, as a world is, SOMETHING has always been, the reality root. The real issue is of what nature adequate to account for actual worlds and worlds with morally governed creatures. God is therefore a serious candidate (as opposed to contingent entities such as flying spaghetti monsters etc), and such are either impossible of being (a square circle) or are actual. After Plantinga's free will defence [as opposed to theodicy] shattered the logical problem of evil 50 years past atheists have struggled with this issue. It is clear there is no good reason to dismiss God as serious candidate and there is no good reason to see God as impossible of being. That leads to the best explanation of our world being credibly, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary, maximally great being. Worthy, of loyalty and of the reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This last points to our built in moral government, including of our reasoning. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Jerry, correct. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

Origines, to try to publicly argue or suggest that human intelligence exhausts observed or possible intelligence is desperate question begging. The whole history of our civilisation is riddled with discussions of other possible intelligence and sci fi pivots on it. Not to mention, SETI. Where, as was pointed out years ago, beavers alone are enough to show non human designs. As to confining intelligence to computational, GIGO driven substrates, that cannot account for the required freedom to exhibit true intelligence. We know full well that there is no good reason to confine intelligence to us so we are simply seeing yet another hyperskeptical rhetorical gambit. The resort to such is a reflection of the desperation of an entrenched orthodoxy that has lost the case on the force of evidence. Where, that cell based life turns on coded digital algorithmic, goal-directed linguistic information, demonstrated 1953 on, destroys any such rhetorical gambit. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

VL, the second fallacy in Racette was pointed out in 67 above https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mind-matters-news-5-egnor-dillahunty-dispute-the-basic-causes-behind-the-universe/#comment-737925 i.e. inference on reliable tested sign is not question begging. Others, since, have noted much the same. The unknown X factor was addressed in 42 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mind-matters-news-5-egnor-dillahunty-dispute-the-basic-causes-behind-the-universe/#comment-737846 and the inference on consistent observation of cause was noted too. By 61, I corrected the attempt to confine inference to intelligence to inference to humans comment and in 62 this was brought to your attention. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mind-matters-news-5-egnor-dillahunty-dispute-the-basic-causes-behind-the-universe/#comment-737898 These have been reflected in other comments in-thread. Further, you have been here at UD long enough to know the weak argument correctives under the resources tab. The net effect of your highlighting a fallacy-riddled strawman tactic objection as though it were substantial, is to underscore the want of substance in these objections to the design inference. The further effect of your unresponsiveness to warranted correction is to suggest that you have come here to promote a flawed agenda despite the pointing out of its flaws. I suggest, reconsideration on your part. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

I appreciate people making various arguments in favor of the intelligent design of genetic coding. However, one of the arguments Meyer routinely makes, and the one I cited in my critique, was that it is our uniform and repeated experience that such encoding is the product of intelligence. Sometimes he qualifies that by saying "when we can identify the source," and sometimes he doesn't. But one can not take the subset of all encoded information that we *know* comes from intelligence and, extrapolating from that experience, conclude that the rest of it must have come from intelligence as well. If Meyer wants to argue, as Jerry concluded (erroneously, I suspect) his comment #85, that DNA could not have occurred through naturalistic process, that's fine -- and, indeed, Meyer does argue that. (Again, I disagree with his conclusions.) But what Meyer can't do is what I accuse him of doing, which is selecting a subset of all encoded information, telling people that a quality particular to that subset (i.e., artificial creation) is characteristic of all encoded information, and then saying that, therefore, it follows that all encoded information must be produced as that subset is. He is on no firmer ground making that argument than if he pointed out that, since all artificial satellites are the product of intelligence, it follows that the moon must be as well, since we don't really know how it got there. PS I now have three comments "in moderation." I don't know how things go here as far as moderation goes, but assume all three will eventually be released. And I can be found on ricochet.com any time, or on gmail as hank.racette. My best to all. -- H.Hank Racette_{October 3, 2021
October
10
Oct
3
03
2021
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply