Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads — Part Deux

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At this writing I see that my post here has 122 responses, and that my post here has 81 responses.

After examining all the dialog one thing seems clear to me: The ID versus Darwinian-materialism question must inevitably invade and challenge the core of the human soul.

Don’t tell me that anyone doesn’t at least eventually ask the only substantive and meaningful questions: 1) Why am I here? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Is there any ultimate purpose or meaning in my life?

If Darwinism is true, the answers to these questions are obvious:

1) No reason.
2) Chemistry and chance, which did not have you in mind.
3) No. You are an ephemeral product of 2).

The problem is that Darwinism is obviously not true, and the scientific evidence mounts every day that its mechanisms are catastrophically inadequate as an explanation for what we observe.

The philosophical, theological, ethical, and existential ramifications of this debate cut to the core of the human soul, which is why it inspires so much passion.

Comments
Hey LarTanner,
Am I correct to say that you understand “reductionism” as necessarily implying that all human perception is wrong all the time?
Not exactly, it's more along the lines of perception itself is an illusion (i.e. it doesn't exist), including the idea that all there is are ever changing atoms. In effect, it's self-refuting for that very reason. Atoms bumping into each other control what ever effect they've caused, including your thoughts, movements, etc. The idea that all material things are the result of atoms moving in certain ways would also be a result of the way your atoms are moving. The atoms I'm made of perhaps move in a slightly different way than yours and are thus causing me to think that reductionism is false. Your atoms might move the same way as mine in the future and you would agree with me that reductionism is false. To put it bluntly, reductionism doesn't allow for perception. All it allows are the elements of the universe. The funny thing about my first statement is that you would need perception for an illusion to take place. The only way you can make sense of that is by adopting a worldview that starts with presuppositions that allow perception. If you know of any reason that shows reductionism can allow for perception, please let me know because I've yet to hear of one. Take care.Scruffy
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Hi BiPed, Sounds fair enough. Perhaps you can point me to some of the areas in which Darwinian theory does not comport to the evidence. I mean this sincerely--not in jest. My understanding of ID is that it has pegged itself primarily to the concept of irreducible complexity. Seems to me, from my limited research into the topic, that Behe et al's work has been seriously undermined. See Ken Miller, for example. Is there more to the story? Something I've missed? If not, has the ID movement stepped away from the concept of irreducible complexity, to some greener pasture? Also, do most IDers reject the idea of common descent? If this is so, how do you explain away the stunning genetic evidence that points toward common human/ape descent (eg, ERV matches, chromosomal evidence, the vitamin c/gulo issue, etc.)? Again, I'm sincerely interested--not trying to be sarcastic.leadme.org
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Scruffy @41, I see the points of your first few paragraphs. We have been focusing on our perceptions (natural and technologically aided) as being "right" or "wrong." Upon reflection, I wonder if this is the right focus. Perhaps "complete" and "incomplete" makes a better spectrum. In any event, we seem to agree that our human perceptions, however aided to date, are not giving the whole story. Am I correct to say that you understand "reductionism" as necessarily implying that all human perception is wrong all the time? If so, I would be interested to read your argument. N.B., to all: With apologies, I must bow out of the discussions of the past few days. Personal reasons. Hopefully, I've not left open any conversations. Thanks for the dialogue.LarTanner
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed @38, Thanks for the clarification. I don't like to have "dueling" long posts, so I will try to be brief. I apologize in advance if brevity compromises the kind of detailed argument our topics deserve. I don't see that you've directly argued your opening point, "My point is that those tools have given us additional insight, now from a molecular perspective, that materialism is indeed false on its face." But maybe you were just stating this point and moving on to your next, more extended argument: "We know that Life cannot operate without semiosis, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest it therefore could have begun without it." This argument may be correct, but I don't see why (as stated) it is a defeater for materialism. A few observations: (1) My posts have tried to get more meat around the idea of "ultimate meaning." Your points don't seem quite connected to it, but I could make some guesses about possible connections. (2) I am not sure I see your case for meaning preceding life. Just for kicks: why could we not talk about meaning and life as simultaneous, co-dependent emergences? I'd be interested here in your take on current research. (3) I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "perception." What is the relationship between perception and interpretation? (4) I realize you have given a partial definition of meaning (although I seem to understand Shannon differently than you do), but I find it strange to talk about meaning without also talking about whose meaning it may be. So, in your usages, whose meaning are we talking about?LarTanner
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
leadme, I think you will find there are a great number who question Darwinian theory based solely upon its inability to comport to the observable evidence. Welcome aboard.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Hi CannuckianYankee, All I'm trying to say is that we need to assess Darwinism as a scientific theory, and let it stand or fall on the basis of physical evidence. Same thing we do with any other scientific theory. In other words, it seems to me that in the case of Darwinian theory, so many people approach the perceived metaphysics first, and if they see apparent metaphysical implications they don't like, they reject Darwinism without having really assessed its scientific merits. I say this as a Christian who until recently rejected Darwinism for just this reason. My former approach was completely backwards, though. Let's assess Darwinism by its scientific merits (and it certainly seems to a layman such as myself to be quite scientifically compelling), and then sort out the metaphysical implications (if any) afterward. We can't just wish the natural world away because it doesn't conform to our metaphysical biases. And funny thing is, if we reject part of the reality of God's creation simply because we can't imagine how that reality squares with our conception of God, we're hardly doing God a favor or giving him any respect. Long story short, I'm certainly not trying to imply that Darwinism is beyond critique, but I do think that any such critique needs to be a scientific rather than a metaphysical one.leadme.org
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Leadme.org, "Darwinian biology has been almost hopelessly confused with atheist philosophy, when in fact there is no direct or inevitable connection between the two. Darwinism may, indeed, fill in one of the gaps that was thought to necessitate God, but I don’t see why we should be searching for God in the gaps in the first place." Well first let me say that your first two words give you away "Darwinian biology." Biology is neither Darwinian or any other "inian." It is not ID, it is not Creationism, it is simply biology. To fail to see the metaphysics behind Darwinian theory, by which we (and others) assess that it has more to do with ideology than science, is to beg a whole lot of questions. The charge that theists fill in gaps where no natural explanation lies is simply false. Theists believe that God is the Creator of all that exists. As such, He is involved in Creation, and is not absent. Where there are gaps in knowledge, it is perfectly legitimate to see God in those gaps. We don't fill them in with God because God is already present and not absent. Natural phenomena ultimately find their beginning in God. When Darwinists, therefore charge that finding natural explanations cancels God's necessity with regard to natural phenomena, they are making religious assertions; and these assertions are overwhelmingly atheistic. So when you assert that Darwinian theory has nothing to say about the ultimate meaning of life, because it doesn't address abiogenesis, you are wrong. Darwinian theory with it's naturalistic assumptions regarding evolution, necessitates abiogenesis. It does not allow for front-loaded evolution, ID or Biblical Creationism, and as such, it speaks volumes to the ultimate meaning of life as being meaningless.CannuckianYankee
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
LarTanner,
You seem to take “wrong” as an absolute term, and I think it’s unnecessary to do so.
I was referring to the portion of your reply where you stated that even if our perceptions never lined up with reality, the tools we develop still help us understand said reality. Never means never all the time. You can't develop tools to help you understand reality if your perceptions are never aligned with objective reality to begin with. It's akin to the 'brain in a vat' scenario. You perceive that you're a physical human that has freewill, a place to live, a car, the ability to walk, etc. The objective reality is that you're a brain in a vat being stimulated by a scientist. The stimulation is what generates your perceptions of reality and no amount of tools developed are going to show you that you're really just a brain in a vat. I find the brain in a vat scenario very similar to a reductionist worldview in that they say we can understand and discover truths about reality, yet it all boils down to how atoms are interacting to one another. You perceptions don't come from anything but how the atoms are moving, that's it. Like the mad scientist prodding the brain, the atoms are generating the stimulation that has you convinced we can know reality. Although a reductionists view of reality is even worse than the brain in a vat scenario. Why? Because the reductionists is basically saying that atoms are stimulating atoms to generate a perceived reality of themselves.
Can we not be partly correct in our natural perceptions and in our tools/technologies for improving perception?
We can and I agree with the statement 100%. I have no problem excepting it because my worldview allows for it. I can see no reason for reductionism allowing such a reality.Scruffy
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
As a child, at age seven, I remember the exact moment I figured out that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless, based on the atheism and Darwinism with which I was raised. That is really sad, Gil. I hope you have been able to forgive your mother and father for raising you in such a bad environment.San Antonio Rose
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
I haven't posted here in a couple months or longer but just happened to pass by and saw Gil's two threads. I have no idea what has been said but from the past, my experience is that what generates long threads here is overt threats against atheism. I once told Hazel that atheism was intellectually bankrupt and before long the thread was several hundred comments long as she and others tried to defend their atheism on intellectually arguments. I know Gil is a reformed atheist and as he said that is a real threat. Keep it up Gil. They are intellectually bankrupt.jerry
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Hello Lars, I apologize if my comment was not clear. You had made the observation that we invent tools in order to help us in perceiving reality, and my comment was simply a response to that single observation. That is why I copied and pasted those specific words from your post. My point is that those tools have given us additional insight, now from a molecular perspective, that materialism is indeed false on its face. As for the larger conversation regarding “meaning”, I would simply start by recognizing that the very existence of “meaning” is perhaps the most significant phenomena known to mankind. This is in no doubt related to the entire apparatus to which the existence of meaning suggests is necessary for its existence. The general definition of “meaning” is that one thing is mapped (by some means) to something else. One thing means another; this signifies that. This definition in itself would indicate that meaning cannot exist without perception, otherwise there would be no way to gather that there is a “this” to begin with (if it were not for the ability to sense and perceive it). In other words, there could not be a “this means that” if we could not perceive a “this” from the start. And by logical extension, the capacity to perceive something entails the rather distinct phenomena of semiosis (symbols). If I pull a card from a deck and look to see which one it is, I do not then have a card in my head, but instead have a particular physical mapping of neurons that represents and encodes the identity of that card within my memory. In other words, I have a perceived abstraction of the card in my head, and that abstraction necessarily involves a chemical representation correlated to the card’s identity. Even if we cannot understand how such an elaborate representative symbol-system works, we certainly know that a card in not in my head - yet I can tell you which one it is. Symbolic representation is also necessary as meaning is being communicated. Meaning cannot be communicated without symbols. This clearly holds true in human language, just as it does in the instance of a bee “dancing” to indicate the presence of food to the remainder of the hive, or an ant reacting to the symbolic meaning of a particular pheromone. Now certainly, we may passionately and intelligently argue whether or not such “lower” life forms have a grasp of “meaning” in the way a human does, but still, we do know that a dancing bee is not the food itself, but instead represents that food through symbolic communication to the other bees. This capacity (of perception and semiosis) necessarily limits the existence of meaning to the domain of living things. In other words, moisture does not mean rust to iron; air vibrating at 262Hz does not mean middle C on a piano to the molecules in the air; rainclouds do not mean the possibility of rain to the ground on which the rain might fall. Without the faculty of perception, meaning cannot exist, and without symbolic representation, meaning could not be perceived or communicated. Therefore, meaning is the sole domain of living things, and is categorically separated from non-living things. Based upon what is observed, I personally see no way to circumvent the fact that meaning exist, and cannot avoid the reality that the existence of meaning is inherently connected to Life. The question then becomes, can they be separated? We know that Life exist, and we know that meaning exist as well. We conclude that meaning is an observable product of living things, but is Life an observable product of meaning? The molecular data suggests not only is this true, but it has to be true. Life exists by means of encoded symbols in the form of nucleic acids arranged in identifiable sequences. These chemical symbols have specific meaning. One thing represents another. For example, C-T-A is a symbolic code for the amino acid Leucine. Likewise, the sequence of A-G-T codes for Serine, and T-A-T codes for Tyrosine. In fact, the first act of a dividing cell is to make a copy of those symbols and pass them to the daughter cell. It is an observable fact that living things operate from a semiotic mapping of chemical structures in the abstract (within DNA) to other chemical structures which are created from that abstraction after it is decoded by cellular machinery (resulting in the proteins and regulatory networks that make life possible). In other words, meaning is observationally at the very core of Life, and Life would not exist without it. Meaning preceded Life on this planet. Since such an assertion (and this post in general) provides such a target-rich environment for materialists, I would just like to quickly encapsulate some of the definitions I use, as well as some of the assumptions I make. Definitions: Meaning: I take my definition directly from the common understanding of the word (that one thing represents another) as well as from Claude Shannon’s paper on Information Theory where he states that things with meaning “refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities”. Code: Any representation(s) that can be conveyed through a channel and then have its original meaning decoded by means of rules. Assumptions: Meaning exist. Meaning requires perception. Perception requires semiotic representation. Perception and semiosis operate solely in the domain of living things. Living things operate from a semiotic system entailing specific meaning. Conclusion: We know that Life cannot operate without semiosis, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest it therefore could have begun without it.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to assert "raw chemistry cannot create symbollic meaning, and by extention, it cannot originate communication." Similarly, your statement about "meaning instantiated into matter" comes out of left field. I don't mean to be dense, but could you please connect the dots from what I have written to what you are saying? Scruffy, You seem to take "wrong" as an absolute term, and I think it's unnecessary to do so. Can we not be partly correct in our natural perceptions and in our tools/technologies for improving perception? My response, therefore, to your A and B points is that we have our common experience and shared understandins to tell us we're probably correct about lots of elements of reality. If you are making an additional point about the need for (or lack of) an "ultimate verification" of correctness, then no, I don't think there is one. At least, I'm not aware of one. I also don't think one is necessary. We can be correct enough within the frameworks we have established through our natural perceptions and through our efforts to build better tools/technologies.LarTanner
September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
LarTanner,
So what if our perceptions don’t always (or ever) match up with reality? Isn’t that the situation we face right at this moment? Isn’t that why we make and develop tools that help enhance and broaden our perception?
If we could never trust our perceptions, developing tools to 'enhance and broaden' said perceptions isn't going to help. Our perceptions of the tools would be wrong as well so there's really nothing you could do about it.
Peceptions are quite important, there is some reason to trust understanding in a good many conditions, and evolution is not purported to explain everything.
Could you please explain: A) What this reasoning is. B) Why you trust said reasoning. Also, no one is claiming that evolution is purported to explain everything.Scruffy
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
Isn’t that why we make and develop tools that help enhance and broaden our perception?
It is exactly those tools and their advancement (as well as our universal experience as beings who record all we've come to know) that is telling us that raw chemistry cannot create symbollic meaning, and by extention, it cannot originate communication. The emperical basis to believe otherwise is absolutely non-existant. So in assessing a cause when we find meaning instantiated into matter, its is not only perfectly reasonable, but it is fundamentally unreasonable to not consider the only cause known to be capable of instantiating meaning into matter - indeed, the only cause known to be able to create meaning at all.Upright BiPed
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
As a Christian and a Darwinian, I see no reason why Darwinism has anything to say about the ultimate meaning of life. Darwinian biology has nothing to say about abiogenesis. And even a working theory of abiogenesis wouldn't have anything to say about the larger question of a creator. Darwinian biology has been almost hopelessly confused with atheist philosophy, when in fact there is no direct or inevitable connection between the two. Darwinism may, indeed, fill in one of the gaps that was thought to necessitate God, but I don't see why we should be searching for God in the gaps in the first place.leadme.org
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
JDH, No need for apologies. Not to be flippant, but I don't see what you're getting so rhetorically worked up about. You say:
IF evolution (including OOL from nothing ) can completely explain life, then we have no reason to believe that our perceived meaning comports with reality.
I have some issues with the statement, but even if I grant it: so what? So what if our perceptions don't always (or ever) match up with reality? Isn't that the situation we face right at this moment? Isn't that why we make and develop tools that help enhance and broaden our perception? Then you say:
To dismiss it as you do shows to me you do not really want to consider the philosophical implications of your own statements.
I think my few posts have shown a willingness to consider precisely these implications, but please feel free to continue enlightening me. Truly. Your final paragraph contains several charged terms: "most," "only," "no reason," "everything." This kind of language seems to me not only overly dramatic but also deformative, as in deforming and derailing a reasoned discussion of ideas. And that paragraph is incorrect at most every turn. Peceptions are quite important, there is some reason to trust understanding in a good many conditions, and evolution is not purported to explain everything. Meanwhile, my questions about free-floating ultimate meaning remain unadressed.LarTanner
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
First, I mean quite seriously that our human ability to make and perceive meaning is independent of whether evolution (including Darwinism) explains the diversity of life on our planet.
Sorry if this is harsh, but... Another completely WRONG statement. And again I can't tell you how WRONG it is! IF evolution ( including OOL from nothing ) can completely explain life, then we have no reason to believe that our perceived meaning comports with reality. If something is only perceived, it means precisely that it might be completely wrong. We have no reason to trust anything at all if our most personal feelings of meaning and purpose are illusions. This is everything. To dismiss it as you do shows to me you do not really want to consider the philosophical implications of your own statements. To reiterate - If my most intimate understandings are only perceptions, then there is no reason to trust my understanding of the supposed objective reality. Thus whether evolution explains everything is intimately connected with meaning and purpose.JDH
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Cabal: Do you really believe that if somehow [Darwinian] evolution could be conclusively shown to be true, then your life, your love, your family, your music, hobbies, charities, everything that you value and care about suddenly would lose all purpose and meaning to you...? As a child, at age seven, I remember the exact moment I figured out that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless, based on the atheism and Darwinism with which I was raised. It was a simple logical conclusion that even a seven-year-old could figure out. From that time until age 43 I worked hard and excelled to the best of my ability in everything I pursued. But it was all tainted by the dark cloud of knowing that it was all ultimately pointless. My life and soul were dark. I was hideously cynical. I tried to destroy the faith of Christians because they repulsed me. I wanted to drag them down into the despair of atheism with which I had lived for so long. Misery loves company. But then something happened, and I realized that my atheism and materialism represented a grand lie. Most of all, I realized that the science I thought supported my atheism, actually refuted it.GilDodgen
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Correction: Shannon entropy H for the example of the accuracy in grams to which we know the AMU would be measured in say decimal digits and would be log10(1/error_fraction). The quantity I gave log10 X should have been X which is still only roughly true since it assumes the MSD is accurate to one MSD.groovamos
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
jpg564, As you might expect, I happen to think my given answers are more correct and less freighted with ideology than those given in the OP. I'm not trying to be a wise-acre, in other words. You, and others, talk about this idea of ultimate purpose as "a purpose beyond just what I want." My reply is two-fold: (1) there are plenty of purposes beyond just what I (or you) want; and (2) the idea of ultimate purpose is nice as an ideal, but on what grounds do we posit it as something actual? So to me, the real "ultimate" issues concern what we're really talking about and whether what we're really talking about is really real. These are the matters I've wanted to discuss. I have less confidence than you that "We all understand what was being asked." I don't think we all do understand--including me. I would like to understand better. Hence, my comments. I also dispute your statement that "If 'evolution' (you mean Darwinism) is true, there is no purpose or meaning." First, I mean quite seriously that our human ability to make and perceive meaning is independent of whether evolution (including Darwinism) explains the diversity of life on our planet. Second, I don't like your actorless "there is" clause because it presents purpose or meaning just existing (or non-existing) "out there," somewhere. My comments and questions have focused on attaching meaning and purpose to an actor that imposes meaning or one that decodes and interprets meaning. Our experience tells us that sentient beings create and decipher meaning. I don't see why we can't be consistent and talk not of a free-floating "ultimate meaning" but rather of a meaning associated with an agent or agents. I am not opposed in principle to free-floating meaning, but I'd like to know the basis for stipulating it. Does this make sense?LarTanner
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
JDH, Excellent comment. It is very frustrating trying to argue with people who are capable of believing two logically contradictory ideas at the same time.Granville Sewell
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
jurrassicmac I am trying to understand you. First of all, you come off in tone as someone who is trying to educate the ignorant peasants. Please stop it. Please learn to put more humility in your tone. I will try to do this also. I admit I sometimes come off too high and mighty. Please forgive me. Second. I don't understand what your concept of God is. Third. Look at this statement. "But as Christians, (I assume) we all acknowledge that the weather is under God’s sovereignty, even though we can completely explain how it works in terms of physical laws, and we can investigate it using methodological naturalism as our starting premise with no ill effect to theology. There is no reason to treat Biology differently than any of the other sciences." WRONG. And I can't emphasize how WRONG this statement is. There is every reason in the world that Biology must be treated differently than the other science. It is because in the end Biology ( or more importantly Evolutionary Biology ) attempts to explain man. And attempts to explain man's consciousness. We can argue til the cows evolve a way to reach the barn about how much God intervened and how much was frontloaded. This is not my concern. What is a big concern is when people conclude from Evolution that NO intervention is necessary. 1. This is the religious statement. We can't possibly know this. 2. This is the statement people wanting so badly to be rid of moral culpability are attracted too. 3. I find the statement entirely unsupported by the scientific and religious and personal evidence. People can have reasonable debates on how much intervention is necessary to go from inorganic dust to CONSCIOUS human being. But the idea that NO intervention is needed at all is the statement I consider foolish, religious, and completely unsupported. Is that clear.JDH
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
When Gil asked the question about purpose, he asked about ultimate purpose, meaning a purpose beyond just what I want. At 7, LarTanner gave these answers to the three questions: 1) Because my parents conceived me. 2) See #1. 3) Yes, as I so choose and assert One could also give these answers: 1) I wanted to log on to UD 2) From the next room 3) I want to read and post responses The answers are valid, but silly. We all understand what was being asked. If "evolution" (you mean Darwinism) is true, there is no purpose or meaning. Our choices are an illusion since we are nothing but matter and energy abiding by the laws of physics. Our lives have no more meaning than where the wind deposits a grain of sand. If consciousness is not an illusion, but is true and not dependent on matter, if we were designed, then there is a purpose. That's a question worth pursuing.jpg564
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Would your life be without purpose or meaning if evolution was conclusively shown to be true? Do you really believe that if somehow evolution could be conclusively shown to be true, then your life, your love, your family, your music, hobbies, charities, everything that you value and care about suddenly would lose all purpose and meaning to you - and you'd instead wish you rather was dead? We assume human lives means more than animal lives but look at life; All life struggles to live and does its best to stay alive. Animals protect their young ones with their own life; a chimp mother may carry her dead child around until she finally give up. Why, if life is without purpose and meaning?Cabal
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Jurassicmac, On a post from maybe a week or two ago I addressed what the difference between a religious statement and a non-religious statement would entail. I can't remember my exact words, but It went somewhat like this: Neutrality as far as God's existence doesn't mean that we are free to guess that God isn't necessary; rather, it means that we say "I don't know" either way. This was the view, which allowed Antony Flew to arrive at the idea that we ought to go wherever the evidence may lead without a thought as to either the non-existence or the existence of God, (and the important part) regardless of whether such evidence leads one to infer design over Naturalistic processes alone. Now here's where I have to disagree with your response; and BTW I am not a scientific Creationist, but perhaps like you, I accept that God is our Creator; so that makes me a Biblical Creationist (I feel I have to clarify this once again). The problem is that the workings of nature by themselves, for which we have evidence, and which is the basis for doing science does not cancel out God's necessity. To say that because we can explain how gravity works, that this is evidence that God is not necessary (you used the phrase "God does not have to micromanage") is still a religious statement. I agree that perhaps God doesn't need to micromanage evolution for it to occur. However, that was not the issue you were addressing. The quote wherin you first mentioned micromanaging seemed to imply that evolution cancels out God's necessity, rather than simply implying that God doesn't need to direct every natural process for which we have evidence. For this belief, we have absolutely no evidence. And your statement was in reference to Will Provine's statement about Darwin's views on this matter, which were quite clearly that God is not necessary if evolution is true. So there is no way you could know this statement to be true, regardless of evidence. If you are a theist, you are inclined to disagree with it on principle; but one thing is certain, you know that It can't be rationally supported by any evidence. Therefore, it fits with what is usually defined as a theological or religious belief. Furthermore, while I alluded to the idea that perhaps God's workings cannot be detected in nature, I never conceded to this as fact. In fact, I believe quite the opposite; that they are. That is precisely the inference we are able to make in light of ID, in light of fine tuning, and I dare say we will be able to make in light of other future evidences perhaps in other fields of science. But I reserve that judgment until we have reasonable evidence that such an inference can be made. This is what separates me (and others here at UD you seem to think are Creationists) from the scientific Creationists; who assume (sometimes with quite well developed arguments) that science overwhelmingly confirms Biblical miraculous events such as Noah's flood. And JM, it's not that we preschool level Creationists don't know what you mean to the extent you have to simplify your terminology and be very clear. We know exactly what you mean, and we disagree on grounds, which are well defined in this website's weak argument correctives. I.e., we'ver heard it all before, and because we have, we've had plenty of time to prepare responses (not necessarily this post), which cover fully all arguments that are possible to level against ID, and against it's validly theistic inference. I see that you like putting words in peoples' mouths. Is this because you want your caricature of others to be true despite evidence to the contrary? Let me give you an example of this: "You’re right, it could be that there are no such things as natural laws or forces like gravity, electromagnetism, strong or weak nuclear forces, that God is fiddling with every particle in the universe in a consistent way at every single moment. But you yourself noted that this is not detectable, or discernible from the alternate theory, which makes it a useless statement for scientific investigation." I never once made a statement that there are no laws of physics. In fact, the existence of God, and His actually working in the cosmos is a more reasonable assessment of reality in light of these laws than that God's involvement isn't necessary. Of course God's involvement is necessary. God is necessary for everything to exist, and we can argue this on a much higher plane of reasoning than methodological naturalism. But your response is quite typical, and it speaks volumes of your conception of what theists mean by God. I think you should take a look at what I stated in # 87 of part one of this two part post, beginning with the 3rd paragraph down. You reveal a lot of assumptions about what a God must necessarily be like if He exists, which atheist Darwinists frequently use to dismiss the existence of God altogether. But their conception of the Biblical God is totally contrary to the conception that scripture actually gives us. This is why I believe they are motivated by theological considerations, rather than by purely examining the evidence with no opinion either way, as articulated by the late former atheist Antony Flew. Your script between the atheist and theist is cute :) , but completely lacking in any reality as to the actual arguments theists typically employ. You don't get lumped in with the atheists because you accept evolution. You get lumped in with them because you employ their same tired arguments and you seem to think you are enlightening us. I'm not saying that you can't enlighten us, but the arguments you are using aren't doing so. Of course 99% of professional scientists accept evolution. I think it would be more accurate to say tha the figure is 100%. Your point? Of those 100%, a chunk believe in Darwinian evolution, another chunk in theistic evolution, another chunk in ID, and another chunk in Creationism. Be careful of statistics like this. They really mean nothing if the term "evolution" is not more narrowly defined.CannuckianYankee
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
jurassicmac: If so, what makes you certain that biology, and biology alone, contains this feature? I'm familiar with Shannon information, and I'm involved with the concepts almost daily in my work on a technical paper. There is no reason to expect that the existence of a "thing" or a "field" can be characterized by Shannon information, because there is no way to characterize the Shannon entropy of a "thing" or a "field". Entropy in this sense in lay terms would roughly correspond to "accuracy". How would you characterize the accuracy of the mass of an atom? The mass is what it is without regard to entropy. So it is meaningless to propose that the mass of an atom expresses Shannon information. Now our efforts to quantify the mass of an atom WOULD be subject to accuracy. In the most basic sense, our knowledge of measure of exactly 1 AMU has as a definition a number, out to X decimal places in grams. So our definition itself would be characterized as having entropy of LOG10 X. Now if we were to try to measure the mass of an atom, this measurement would be characterized by an entropy represented by the accuracy of the equipment and transducers used in the experiment and the entropy of the measure would be non-linearly added to the entropy of the gram measure of 1 AMU, for composite entropy figure. In other types of measure, there is a basic limit to accuracy of each measurement because of noise in the environment, such as electromagnetic noise. This accuracy can be estimated, based on noise power and probe signal power. and with this is what my technical paper is concerned. It is easy to see why it is tempting and philosophically useful to characterize the genetic code as information based, because it is inherently almost perfectly analogous to strings of characters or digits, moreover serving in a way which in our everyday experience we would classify as instructions. And there is no such string of digits corresponding to a stream of photons coming here from deep space. That is, unless it is measured or otherwise recorded, or converted to other forms for transmission. And then the phenomenon becomes part of the Shannon "coding problem", and is subject to the rules of information theory.groovamos
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
CY @ 18:
In affirming exactly what he denies Darwinists do, JM contradicts himself. God not having to micromanage is a religious judgment, for which there is absolutely no physical evidence, and which JM oddly contradicts in the first statement of his I quoted.
What I said in context (and should have explained in in terms that a middle schooler could understand, in retrospect) was that positing 'divine intervention' is not required as part of the scientific explanation of embryological development, or any other process that we've been successful at explaining thus far.
If we can discover no physical evidence regarding God’s existence and purpose, then how could we know that God does not have to micromanage? Perhaps God is micromanaging, and we simply can’t detect it. How would we know one way or the other?
EXACTLY! That's my entire point. You seem to understand it here, but then you don't understand when someone tries to explain that if you can't detect or test something, even in principal, it is not science. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that it's not scientific.
In affirming exactly what he denies Darwinists do, JM contradicts himself. God not having to micromanage is a religious judgment, for which there is absolutely no physical evidence, and which JM oddly contradicts in the first statement of his I quoted.
I apologize for not speaking more clearly. By now I should realize that I have to be incredibly explicit when talking to creationists. Saying that "God does not have to micromanage embryonic development" Is not a religious statement any more so than saying "God does not have to micromanage erosion" or "God does not have to micromanage the inner workings of a computer" What it's saying in all of those cases is that divine intervention isn't required as an explanation. You're right, it could be that there are no such things as natural laws or forces like gravity, electromagnetism, strong or weak nuclear forces, that God is fiddling with every particle in the universe in a consistent way at every single moment. But you yourself noted that this is not detectable, or discernible from the alternate theory, which makes it a useless statement for scientific investigation. (Along the lines of saying leprechauns are doing the same thing; how could you ever know that they're not? But I have a feeling that you wouldn't accuse someone who said that leprechauns aren't micromanaging the development of an embryo as making a 'religious' proclamation) Again, it's not 'religious' to not posit God as a direct, proximate explanation; it's scientific. If you have a beef with not allowing miracles as part of an explanation, then you have a beef with all of science, not just evolutionary biology. Imagine the following hypothetical conversation: (variations of which I've witnessed many times) Theist: God is benevolent and all powerful, and all 'kinds' of life are specifically designed. Atheist: It doesn't seem like the God you're describing would intentionally design things like aids or malaria. Theist: That's a religious argument. Atheist: No, it's not. I'm merely saying that your 'theory' is internally inconsistent. Theist: Diseases are a result of human sin. Atheist: That doesn't make sense. There were diseases before there were humans. Theist: Another religious argument! Atheist. No, it's not. I'm merely pointing out a contradiction in your statement. Something can't be caused by something it precedes. Theist: How do you know what God would or not do? Maybe the consequences of sin were applied retroactively. Maybe God just wanted to make it look as if things share a common ancestor, to test our faith. Maybe God..." Atheist: Hold on there a second! I'm not making speculations on what God would or would not do, (I don't even believe in him) YOU ARE! That's the same thing that happens in these threads, except I get lumped in with the atheist because I accept evolution along with 99% (plus or minus 1%) of professional scientists.jurassicmac
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
@uoflcard, "Of all of the unbelievable claims of natural evolution, this, to me, is the most unbelievable. I know that my thoughts and actions are not the inevitable output of an electrochemical kludge formed by the laws of physics. I know this." No, the absurdity is that you evolved to disbelieve evolution. Evolution guided you to not believe that it's true. You can't help what you believe. It's all the selective pressure's fault.ellijacket
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
tjguy (3)
As far as evolution goes, there is no goal, no purpose, no good, no bad, and no rhyme or reason for anything. No one can honestly live their lives this way though so if a philosophy doesn’t work, can it really be true? In our hearts, we all know that life does have meaning.
I always go back to the absurdities of evolutionary psychology. Alledgedly, we tend to desire the survival of our children to further the survival of or genetic information. But our hearts also break for sufferring children around to the world...well then there must have been some type of communal selective pressure for those feelings. Supposedly, every thought that "pulses through our brains according to the laws of physics only" was shaped by selection.   Of all of the unbelievable claims of natural evolution, this, to me, is the most unbelievable. I know that my thoughts and actions are not the inevitable output of an electrochemical kludge formed by the laws of physics. I know this. How anyone could believe otherwise is beyond my comprehension. My best guess is that it scratches some peoples' itching ears that desire there to be no Goduoflcard
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Sorry Collin, it seems you beat me to the punch.CannuckianYankee
September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply