My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads — Part Deux

_{GilDodgen
September 16, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{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

Collin, others: Isn't data a type of information? I think what you mean is that weather can be quantified through data, which we produce. It doesn't contain the data. The data is something we produce in reference to what we observe in weather. Weather isn't a material substance, but a human description of phenomenon involving certain physical interactions of matter. That phenomenon manifests in physical form, such as in a tropical storm, but it's the phenomenon we define as weather, which produces the physical features out of matter that already exists. Weather does not produce new matter; it is merely our description of the rearrangement of it. Thus it is the matter, which contains the information, but weather contains no information without our input in describing the physical phenomenon. Biology is entirely different, and I think we should clarify that we are talking about biological organisms as opposed to the study of them. Biological organisms contain information, like the matter, which interacts according to physical properties to produce what we observe as weather. However, the information in the matter involved in weather does not contain FSCI - there's no DNA in a raindrop. Biological matter does contain FSCI. So Jurassicmac is simply wrong. There is a reason to treat biology as uniquely different than all other sciences in that regard. Biology is concerned with not only biological protoplasm, but the phenomenon of what we call life. Biological matter contains FSCI, which is apparently necessary for biological life. JM is also wrong here: GilDodgen: "Well then, I guess Will Provine is guilty of the same thing." (confusing Darwinism with Atheism or Materialism) Jurassicmac: "Yep. There is absolutely nothing you could ever discover about the mechanism of how something in our universe works that could possibly answer the question of the existence of God, or ‘ultimate purpose’ definitively, one way or the other." While his statement might be true, it does not equate with his evaluation of Provine as confusing Darwinism with atheism or materialism. Even Jurassicmac has trouble separating his religious assumptions from the facts of science: for he states in his prior post: "Saying that evolution didn’t have you in mind isn’t any different than saying embryonic development didn’t have you in ‘mind’; embryonic development doesn’t have a ‘mind’ or even an ‘intent’; It’s just following an existing set of rules. God doesn’t have to go in and micromanage the process." 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. 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? And then JM is also wrong in his assessment of methodological naturalism as the starting basis for doing science, as if mn does not start from materialistic metaphysical assumptions; which it does. We've pretty much exhausted this issue in a number of earlier threads on UD, too numerous to count. Weak argument corrective #17 tackles it.CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PST}

Jurassicmac, You are incorrect. Those things are not information, those things are data. That data is created when minds measure it. But DNA information is used as instructions to cellular machines. This is called fSCI; functional specified complex information and is radically different from the data that we abstract from nature when we make measurements. If we found some kind of blueprint for weather, then that would be information. But the weather seems to be governed by purely mechanical processes. A computer is different. In addition to mechanical processes, it is also governed by the information its hardware contains. Actually you are right, I'm sorry. I really do not know that those other things, like rocks, do not possess information. In fact, I believe (but have no proof) that they do have that information. But we see the information in DNA while, to my knowledge, none of that kind of information has been found in rocks and stars and clouds.Collin_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST}

Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin I am very seriously interested in the sorts of questions which 500 years ago would have been given religious answers. What are we here for? Where did it all come from? In a way, I think religion is to be admired for asking the right questions. ~ Richard Dawkinsbevets_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PST}

Collin:
There is a reason: biology contains information. Weather only contains data, if that.
If biology contains 'information', then so does geology; rock strata contains information about age, composition, pole orientation, volcanic activity, meteorite impacts, past life, etc. There are even built-in 'instructions' in the universe as to how geology proceeds: New layers form on top of old ones, erosion subtracts, plate tectonics re-arrange, etc. If biology contains 'information,' then so does astronomy; Light from distant objects contains information about distance, relative speed and motion, composition, location, etc. There are even built-in 'instructions' in the universe as to how stellar objects form and behave: Gravitation causes clouds of hydrogen and helium to collapse and ignite in a nuclear reaction, gravitation also causes planets to form from and orbit stars, etc. If biology contains 'information,' then so does crystallography; Crystals contain information about composition, molecular structure, chemical reactions, history, etc. There are even built-in 'instructions' in the universe as to how crystals form and behave: The molecular structure, as well as environmental conditions, determine how the crystal grows, what pattern the molecules take, how rigid the crystal is, its light transmission, etc. So, by that criteria, we can treat at least those three disciplines 'differently', because the objects they study contain information as well. Perhaps you meant that biology contains more information than other sciences? Or that it contains more complex information? (or digital, functional, specified, complex information) If so, what makes you certain that biology, and biology alone, contains this feature?jurassicmac_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PST}

jurassicmac, There is a reason: biology contains information. Weather only contains data, if that.Collin_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PST}

Maybe you should grow up and see the implications of materialism.
I agree that I, like everyone else, can stand to grow up. But I wonder about the expression, "implications of materialism." If we want to talk about the implications of materialism without getting into the is/ought (or ought not) problem, how do you think we can do it? To be more pointed, do you think items 2 and 3 in the original post each slide from "is" into "ought" statements?LarTanner_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

GilDodgen:
Well then, I guess Will Provine is guilty of the same thing.
Yep. There is absolutely nothing you could ever discover about the mechanism of how something in our universe works that could possibly answer the question of the existence of God, or 'ultimate purpose' definitively, one way or the other. I've heard Provine speak before, so this is a fairly in-context quote. But most of the time, when you hear a scientist say that evolution has no 'goal' or 'purpose' or 'direction', they simply mean that the process of evolution has none of those things; not that those things don't exist anywhere. Evolution is 'undirected' in the same way that hurricane formation, volcanism, or embryonic development are 'undirected'; none of those things require deliberate, continuous intervention to explain how they work. 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.jurassicmac_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST}

It’s either a juvenile mistake; or a deceitful, underhanded tactic. Well then, I guess Will Provine is guilty of the same thing:
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.
GilDodgen_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST}

GilDodgen:
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).
Gill, your statement here contains a tremendous error in reasoning, and the error is due to a simple mis-definition that a quick trip to the dictionary will rectify. How your statement should read is: "If ATHEISM or MATERIALISM are true, the answers to these questions are obvious:" Darwinian evolution, (or neo-Darwinian, or whatever you want to call it) is only a proposed mechanism for the diversity of life, not a theory about 'ultimate purpose' or anything like that. On one hand, I hate to accuse anyone of deliberately misrepresenting science like this, but on the other hand, I really can't imagine why this is so hard to understand. There are many Christians who are 'darwinists'. Saying that evolution didn't have you in mind isn't any different than saying embryonic development didn't have you in 'mind'; embryonic development doesn't have a 'mind' or even an 'intent'; It's just following an existing set of rules. God doesn't have to go in and micromanage the process. The same is true with evolution. You can raise the question of why the universe and its laws exist in such a specific way as to facilitate the development and evolution of life, but that's a different question entirely. You're taking the philosophy of some Darwinists, and arguing as if Darwinism itself has anything to do with 'ultimate purpose'. It's either a juvenile mistake; or a deceitful, underhanded tactic.jurassicmac_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

@LarTanner, You should write a book on philosophy. All the great minds over the centuries that have asked these questions just wasted their time. They should have just grown up. Maybe you should grow up and see the implications of materialism.ellijacket_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PST}

Also, quite aside from Darwinism itself, if you take naturalism/materialism/physicalism (whichever term you prefer) seriously, then you lose the concept of "free will" altogether, and it means that we, as Cashmore put it, "have no more free will than a bowl of sugar" (quoted from memory - sorry if it's a little inaccurate). That's a quote from someone who agrees with materialism! What's even worse, is that scientists have, in general, taken this so seriously, that a paper in PNAS (Cashmore's) can proclaim that we have no free will, and not even justify his statement or supply a source of justification! If you look at the lengthy citations required to establish nearly every fact in a scientific paper, and compare that to the citations that Cashmore needed to show that free will was a myth, you realize that the entire scientific establishment is infected with the myth of materialism, and doesn't even feel the need to justify its position.johnnyb_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PST}

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).
I don't see what Darwinism (or any of humanity's thousands of religious and political) ideologies has to do with the answers to the questions. 1) Because my parents conceived me. 2) See #1. 3) Yes, as I so choose and assert. Isn't this whole "debate" rather artificial? Perhaps we can all grow up a bit.LarTanner_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PST}

I think that a lot of the more reflective atheists, materialists and determinists want to be convinced otherwise, but generally see their only options as deterministic materialism, or a spiritual world they abhor with eternal hell and a god that commands people to dash children against the rocks.William J. Murray_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PST}

Gil, I believe you are right that Darwinism correctly understood does eliminate purpose from life. But I'm sure you have noticed that some opponents of ID (not the majority, but a very vocal minority) are even more passionate than we are, they seem to be even more frightened by the possibility that they might be designed for a reason, than we are by the idea that there might be no purpose to life. And it does no good to present evidence to these people, the stronger your arguments are, the angrier they become. Much as I would have preferred to discuss only scientific arguments in my new book , I did dive into theology briefly in Chapter 9, when I quoted Darwin: "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished." I have found that many of our most passionate opponents were raised fundamentalists, and taught what Darwin was taught about God, and find this kind of God to be even more frightening than purposelessness. I tried to deal with Darwin's objection in a footnote: "Darwin is apparently referring to passages like John 3:18, 'He who does not believe is condemned,' which are sometimes interpreted to mean that all non-Christians are 'condemned.' If I thought the Christian God were that unfair, I would share Darwin's view of Christianity, but that John did not mean this as a condemnation of all non-Christians is clear from the following verse: '...and this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men preferred the darkness, because their deeds were evil.'" I also spent an entire "Epilogue" trying to deal with another theological problem "Is God really good?" that I believe also accounts for much of the passion of our opponents. This Epilogue seems to be the most popular chapter in my book, because, as I wrote (and truly believe) "I think most people who claim not to believe in God, say this not because of any shortage of evidence for design in Nature, but because it is sometimes so hard to see evidence that God cares about us, and they prefer not to believe in God at all, than to believe in a God who doesn't care." As I said, I would have much preferred to avoid theology altogether, because all you can do is speculate, and also because so many people claim that ID proponents do not understand the difference between science and religion. Most of us do understand the difference, we are just interested in both.Granville Sewell_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PST}

I think two much more interesting questions are: 1. Is there such thing as "me" distinct from others? 2. Can I make observations and come to a trustworthy conclusion? If strict materialism is true. The obvious, irrefutable answers are: 1. No 2. NoJDH_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PST}

"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)." Exactly. It means that ultimately, it doesn't matter how we live our lives or even if we live our lives. It is hard to live life when a person realizes that life is actually meaningless and your actions, whether "good" or "bad"(meaningless terms in Darwinism) ultimately do not matter. In evolution, what is, is and there is no "right" or "wrong". To talk about good and evil, Darwinists have to borrow from the Christian worldview, and yet we all know good and evil exist. 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.tjguy_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PST}

Couldn't agree more, Gil. The hollow appeals to evidence supporting the thesis of law and chance creating fCSI is matched in ignorance only by the baseless ad hominem attacks on ID, equating its advocates to science hatersuoflcard_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PST}

It is interesting that hardcore atheists never tire of proclaiming in effect that Science proves--proves!-- that we are all ultimate losers in a meaningless universe. And they are filled with loathing at anything that might indicate anything better. <shrug/>Matteo_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply