My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads

_{Gil Dodgen

September 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Because of my many duties and responsibilities I post infrequently at UD. However, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon: My posts seem to inspire a great amount of debate and very long threads, as is the case here.

I have a theory about why this is the case.

My thesis is that people like me, a former materialist atheist, who have been influenced by logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., the ID movement) represent the greatest threat to the reigning nihilistic and anti-intellectual Darwinian orthodoxy.

Comments

"I cannot get how something could both exist yet be completely nonmaterial AND yet also be perfectly able to affect the material. This is what I think is incoherent!" All of our abstracts do not affect the material, yet they exist. The difficulty is how something non-material that exists can affect material. But this is not incoherent in the least. Your difficulty stems from your a priori assumption that material essence is all there is. You could not know that for certain, and so your position is more incoherent than the other. The position of theism would be incoherent if we could be certain that material essence is all there is, but as I stated, we can't. I realize that this is difficult when one is trained to understand the world from the materialist position, but there is a solution. It's a philosophical solution and not a scientific one: there must be a first cause to all material essence that is not itself material essence - I refer to the cosmological argument here. That's the solution. It's been well established here (and elsewhere), and it is coherent. In fact, we have physical evidence in cosmology for why this is so. It is the materialist cosmology (as recently touted by Stephen Hawking in his new book) that is incoherent; it leads to absurdities such as the notion that the laws of physics created the universe. Somewhere beyond space, matter and time there has to exist something that is not space, matter or time; something that transcends them. It can't be an abstract something, it must be a real something. The laws of physics are abstracts, which only quantify and explain physical phenomena, so they can't be the causal "something."CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Pedant and avocationist, In discussing romantic love I neglected a very important point. Romantic love is not simply the feelings associated with it. Romantic love often begins with those feelings, which I don't think are in fact love, but infatuation, and what in scripture and other ancient sources is termed "Eros." I can love (agape) someone without being infatuated with them. If I do an act of kindness to a stranger completely detached from any sense that I like or dislike them, then I have committed an act of love towards them. Romantic love must get beyond the infatuation to the act. An infatuation can inspire acts of love, but it can also inspire acts of jealousy and revenge or even hatred in response to unrequited feeling toward another; so the feeling is not the same as true love.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, So your statement begs the question of whether the universe is in fact purposeless and indifferent. You are presuming that it is. I'm not presuming anything. Where did you get that? Am I speaking another language? I said, and I'm saying again that I don't care if the universe is purposeless. I understand that you care, but, speaking with agape, that is not my problem. :(Pedant_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

avocationist, Thanks for your post. There is a particular context by which I speak of love, and that context is found in the character and essence of God. God is love. God expresses this essence through acts of love. Love would not be love without God acting. Without that context of God acting, love would be meaningless. It can be compared to another context such as matter. Matter has essence; however, that essence is expressed through the movement of physical particles - they act and react. While this is an imperfect comparison, you can see that action can express essence. I think, as Bruce David has suggested, that no matter how we speak of love, all our descriptions are inadequate. You have to take such descriptions as incomplete, and my description as I acknowledged is incomplete. We could speak of love for a million years and still not get a complete understanding of it.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Pedant, "What I meant was that life is worth living even if the universe is purposeless and indifferent to me." Yes, but what if the universe is not purposeless and indifferent and you just believe it so? Your ability to find meaning in life then is not in spite of the universe's meaninglessness and indifference, but because the universe is not meaningless or indifferent. So your statement begs the question of whether the universe is in fact purposeless and indifferent. You are presuming that it is.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Heinrich,
I can’t see how being a value judgment means something is an ought. In what sense is “Gil plays the piano well” an ought statement?
It is a comparison of value. Playing the piano "well" conceals a value judgment in the word well. To give it strictly physical terms would be to say Gil plays the piano at this tempo and speed and at these notes and hits the piano at these velocities. None of which will bring you a "good or bad" playing ability.Clive Hayden_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Canuck, There's quite a difference between saying love is a transcendent essence, and saying love is an act. I agree with the first. Anyway, perhaps this is a good place, in light of some of the posts here, to reiterate an earlier question I had, which TGPeeler said was incoherent. I see a lot of discussion of material versus nonmaterial. I'd like clarification on this because I can't quite relate to it. I agree that a concept, such as the number 4, is completely nonmaterial, although it is completely dependent upon material reality for its formation. But when I asked this question before, one poster said our souls are an abstraction. Now, I really doubt that. I think our souls have more substance than the concept of the number 4. I asked at the time, "An abstraction of what." Because all other abstract concepts I can think of are an abstraction of something related to material reality. My take on the phrase "nonmaterial" is that it is an outmoded idea from when people really had no inkling of the subtle parts of reality, unseen forces and tiny atoms for example, that are completely real and physical. They saw that there were effects from the unseen, and decided that there was another side to reality called "spiritual" and that it was nonmaterial. So my question is, how do we know or why do we assume that we have already come to the end of such knowledge of such subtle forces, i.e., the electromagnetic spectrum? The bottom line to me is that either something exists or it does not. If it exists, it is not nothing. If it is not nothing, and furthermore, if that not nothing thing can interact with matter (God, the soul) then how can we really call it nonmaterial and what does nonmaterial even mean? Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that God and our souls are material in the way that we commonly think of matter. They may be of such a rarified nature that they go through a couple of phase changes we have not yet conceived of. But I am suspecting that reality is all of a piece, and that could best be described as spiritual, i.e., there is one reality and it is a spiritual reality. I cannot get how something could both exist yet be completely nonmaterial AND yet also be perfectly able to affect the material. This is what I think is incoherent!avocationist_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Clive - you haven't explained in what sense love is an "ought". I can't see how being a value judgment means something is an ought. In what sense is "Gil plays the piano well" an ought statement?Heinrich_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Heinrich,
I don’t think we have a definitive answer to your question, and I don’t want to get sidetracked into a discussion of materialism, which is where it seems you want to take us. If that’s the basis of your reasoning, them please lay it out to us all.
I have answered your questions, Heinrich, either love physically exists or it doesn't. Either it is a physical "is" or it isn't. That's what I was arguing against LarTanner initially. And since it doesn't physically exist as a result of chemicals interactions or as it's own chemical, you cannot get to it from an "is", because it is an ought, a value judgment. It doesn't matter if people judge wrongly, that still presupposes value in even saying that something should or shouldn't be valued in such a way, we don't make such value judgments about 3 pounds moving at three miles and hour. That would be a category mistake. You cannot invalidate an ought because it cannot provide an is for it's justification. Thus you cannot invalidate love because it doesn't physically exist.Clive Hayden_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, I’ve reviewed your posts @112 – 117, and I realize that we’ve gotten off track from the point that I had made @112, when I responded to Barb, who said: If there is nothing but “blind, pitiless indifference” to the universe and to humanity, then what’s the point in doing anything? I replied: Because you love your spouse, your children, your parents, and they are counting on you? What I meant was that life is worth living even if the universe is purposeless and indifferent to me. There followed a post by Clive Hayden @23, challenging my point, and I responded to him @30, 58, and 93. Then @96, you asked me if I believe that love is a good thing. That led us to a discussion of the ontological status of love and of morality, which is where we are now (and where you apparently wanted us to be). If I had more time, I would pursue that discussion further with you out of courtesy, but with reluctance, because such discussions seem to be interminable. However, real love (agape) and real duty (pietas) have called me away from the Internet for several weeks (starting Monday evening), so I ask you to accept my apologies for leaving your arguments unaddressed for now. Until later... :)Pedant_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Bruce, Thanks. You left me with a lot to consider just in that one post. While part of what you stated isn't the Christian view, much of it is. The one thing I will disagree with here (and there are others, but probably not worth mentioning at this time) is the part about love being an experience (I hope I'm understanding your correctly here). Of course I hold to the Christian view of love specified as "agape;" which as you have pointed out, is unconditional. I'm not certain if you read my posts to Pedant, but I cited a part of the Christian scripture that talks about agape - the Greek word for this type of love. Agape as I understand it is an act of love, rather than simply an experience of love. While it is an experience on the part of the receiver, what comes from the giver seems most important. Indeed, according to the scriptures the greatest act of love is for someone to lay down their life for another, and we have this perfectly exemplified in the sacrifice of Christ. So obviously the Christian would view the giving as higher than the receiving in this respect. However, the receiving is what benefits us the most in relation to the sacrifice of Christ specifically. I would say that in other relationships both the giving and the receiving are equally beneficial. The reason I make this distinction with regard to the divine relationship is that God benefits nothing from our loving Him. He desires us to love Him, but He does not need us to love Him, since He is transcendent and in need of nothing. And this is what makes agape unconditional. God loves expecting nothing in return, and that is the essence of perfect love. So the point to be stressed here is that love is an "ought." It is something we should do. We should love others and sacrifice our interests for the interests of others. While perhaps none of us does this perfectly, since it is a perfect standard, it is no less what we ought to do. Where I agree is that this perfect standard is God. God is love. He is not only love, but perfect love is found in God and in God only. I think the issue we were initially concerned with in this thread where love is concerned was the issue of the Darwinian charge of the universe being "blind, pitiless and indifferent," as mentioned by Barb. Well that might be evident if one is to see only what one wants to see; and for Darwinists, they don't want to see certain things. One thing is very peculiar with Darwinists concerning love in particular: Since they view love as stemming from the inner workings of the brain, for them, love is simply a feeling and not an act. Now before I get charged with guessing how Darwinists relate to love, allow me to simply state that this is what Darwinism implies, but it may not be how Darwinists act; and clearly it isn't. Darwinists are capable of acts of love as much as anyone, and they do acts of love. But Darwinian theory does not lend itself to love as an act or an "ought." Some may further charge that Darwinian theory is not concerned with values and morality. However, this is to me an incoherent argument. I sense some question-begging going on with such arguments. How can one say that our morality is all tied up with the material inner workings of the brain, which evolved to allow us to experience feelings of being loved, and at the same time insist that Darwinism doesn't address morality? It does, and it's answer is that morality is something that evolved. And since it evolved out of blind natural processes, it is meaningless. I stated earlier that the Christian scriptures are decidedly anti-materialistic, and this is one of the glaring reasons. Now if we put all this together with the issue of primitive concepts, I think you can see why I have a problem with the term (while fully understanding why this particular distinctive category is employed), but I won't belabor the point. I've had further time to think about this since our last correspondence, and what seems to me to be more accurate, while leaving out the inadequate and inappropriate term "concept" (and realizing that no matter what terms we use, they will still be inadequate), I've come up with "transcendent essence." Love is a transcendent essence. The only means by which we can really define and conceive of love, however, as I mentioned before is in reference to interactions between humans and animals (of course the Christian would take this a step further with respect to the divine relationship). And even this is inadequate, but perhaps not inappropriate. God seems to provide all our understanding of Him in our language; which itself is an act of love. Darwinism, on the other hand, since it is impersonal, and is incapable of touching on issues of consciousness (which it denies) is profoundly inadequate to the task of accounting for, explaining, defining or even exemplifying love; because Darwinism denies love's true source.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

It worked! My smiley appeared! A whole new world of expression has opened up to me. A million thanks,CannuckianYankee! :)Pedant_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Avocationist said (with emphasis), Love is not an act! It may very well inspire many actions, but is not itself an act. You might want to tell that to CannuckianYankee, who said @122: If you consider that love is an act of the will that you do towards another, rather than a feeling that you have towards another, I think you can understand the Christian understanding of the word. and I think we’re so used to love being refered to in terms of romantic love; which quite often involves feelings more than deeds, we forget that love an act. and Also – another thing about agape – agape is really positive regard that is not deserved. In other words, “turning the other cheek” is an act of agape. And to Borne @69: Basic love is an act of will, not mere subjective feelings generated in flesh by electro-chemical stimuli. :)Pedant_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

avocationist - I was responding to Clive @80 who wrote "It’s a value judgment, a person either ought or ought not to be loved." I'll let you discuss this with him.Heinrich_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Sorry for re-posting this, but I suspect it'll be lost up-thread, thanks to me being moderated. Sorry, Clive, could you please answer my questions – I’m trying to understand what you’re trying to say, and I’d appreciate it if you would directly engage with what I’m writing. I don’t think we have a definitive answer to your question, and I don’t want to get sidetracked into a discussion of materialism, which is where it seems you want to take us. If that’s the basis of your reasoning, them please lay it out to us all.Heinrich_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

"’d still like to know where this leaves people who are loved, but ought not to be." There are no such people. Love is not an act! It may very well inspire many actions, but is not itself an act.avocationist_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: This is a general response to post #87. I'm sorry, but I am not the right person to ask about a lot of the philosophical/logical questions you ask, because I long ago ceased to find it very useful to pursue them. Fundamentally, my approach to the deep questions in life is that basic knowledge about the true nature of reality comes from a place other than our logical mind. Rational thinking is a useful (and even necessary) tool to clarify the consequences of our basic understanding, but it is incapable by itself of giving us any real knowledge. So what is the source of real knowledge? That's one of those questions that is impossible to answer definitively with words (and words are all we have). True knowing is to me a kind of seeing into the truth of things. The Sufis have an expression, "Knowledge is given, not acquired." meaning, as I understand it, that little by little the veils to understanding are lifted and we see the Truth more and more clearly and deeply. When I characterized love as a "primitive concept", I used what words I have at my disposal, but I mean that love is neither primitive nor a concept. What I was trying to convey was the notion that love cannot be defined. It is what it is, and one can only know it by experiencing it (but at the same time, it is not an experience, either). It's kind of like the color red. One could define red as the experience one has when a certain frequency of light strikes the retina, producing a nerve impulse that is transmitted to the brain, etc., etc., but this would not convey the essence of red to a blind man. The only way to understand what red is is to see something red. So it is with love. That said, one can say some things about love, as in the biblical passage you refer to, but they don't define it. I would add that real love is unconditional and grants perfect freedom. Romantic love is not a good example, usually, because it is seldom unalloyed with need. Love for one's children or pets often comes closer. I believe that we humans are capable of divine love, of the love that is God, because He made us in His image and likeness out of himself. We are Gods, and we possess God's qualities because we have been created that way by Him. But we have forgotten. That forgetting is all part of the Plan and the Purpose of the Creation. In our step by step remembering of Who We Really Are, we experience the awesome wonder of our being, and in the process, God experiences His own greatness through us. This is not the Christian view of things, I realize, but as I have said before (in other threads), I am not a Christian.Bruce David_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

Cabal: I meant, "respectfully disagree", not "respectively disagree". (Why doesn't the damn spell checker flag words that aren't what I MEANT to say?!) Sorry.Bruce David_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Cabal, You said, "The evidence mentioned seen in isolation doesn’t point any in any direction. It is when we view the evidence from a long list of subjects that we detect a strong correlation pointing unequivocally in a particular direction: Then we realize that what we are seeing is the result of natural processes." I'm afraid I must respectively disagree. You are wrong on both counts. First, the evidence from fruit fly experiments, the 20 year E. Coli study by Lenski, observational evidence from the study of malaria and the human responses to it, as well as studies of the development of resistance to antibiotics and insecticides all point strongly to the conclusion that random mutation and natural selection are incapable of producing any change that involves more than one or two point mutations in a particular gene. Your attempt to wriggle out of this by saying that "evidence seen in isolation doesn't point in any direction" is simply incorrect. Secondly, the "evidence from a long list of subjects" does not point "uniquivocally in a particular direction." There is some circumstantial evidence for the truth of Darwinism, but there is also a ton of evidence to the contrary, and the latter is stronger than the former. Read Denton's Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, for a good summarization of it, and more has accumulated since the publication of that book. There are two issues in this debate, which should be kept separate, but often aren't. The first is the question of whether the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a scientifically valid explanation of the variety of life forms now extant and in the fossil record. In my opinion, this question has been thoroughly answered in the negative. The second is whether ID is a valid replacement theory. I believe that it is, but this is a bit more open to debate. A perfectly defensible scientific position would be "we don't know how life originated, and we don't know how it evolved." But to keep pretending that Darwinism is a valid answer is simply denial.Bruce David_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

pedant : + ) makes :) : + ( makes :( That's all I know. If you consider that love is an act of the will that you do towards another, rather than a feeling that you have towards another, I think you can understand the Christian understanding of the word. I think we're so used to love being refered to in terms of romantic love; which quite often involves feelings more than deeds, we forget that love an act. When I love someone, I may have a feeling of positive regard towards them, but it doesn't end there - I treat them according to 1 Cor. and even more. If we view love as simply the feeling we get with romantic love, then I can see how someone might not equate it as an "ought." Also - another thing about agape - agape is really positive regard that is not deserved. In other words, "turning the other cheek" is an act of agape.CannuckianYankee_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Cabal: You beg a lot of questions in the above, which comes across as more of a confident-manner declaration of your own views and dismissal of other views [in some cases laced with some pretty seriously loaded ad hominems], than a serious addressing of a wide range of issues on their merits. 1 --> I suggest that you first need to credibly account -- on the usual evolutionary materialistic frame -- for the origin of a metabolising, Von Neumann self replicating cell based life form, with empirical evidence. 2 --> That is, you need to cogently address the spontaneous origin -- in some warm little pond or equivalent pre-biotic environment -- of:
(i) an underlying storable code to record the required information to create not only (a) the primary functional machine [[here, a Turing-type “universal computer”] but also (b) the self-replicating facility; and, that (c) can express step by step finite procedures for using the facility; (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions; thus controlling: (iv) position-arm implementing machines with “tool tips” controlled by the tape reader and used to carry out the action-steps for the specified replication (including replication of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that as a part of their function, can provide required specific materials/parts and forms of energy for the replication facility, by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment.
3 --> Also, since parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating machine with an integral von Neumann universal constructor, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicating machine to exist. [[Take just one core part out, and self-replicating functionality ceases: the self-replicating machine is irreducibly complex (IC).]. 4 --> This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. 5 --> Immediately, we are looking at islands of organised function for both the machinery and the information deeply isolated in the wider sea of possible (but mostly non-functional) configurations. In short, outside such functionally specific -- thus, isolated -- information-rich hot (or, "target") zones, want of correct components and/or of proper organisation and/or co-ordination will block function from emerging or being sustained across time from generation to generation. 6 --> So, once the set of possible configurations is large enough and the islands of function are credibly sufficiently specific/isolated, it is unreasonable to expect such function to arise from chance, or from chance circumstances driving blind natural forces under the known laws of nature. And, minimally complex observed life forms, just on DNA, have 100+ k bits of nuclear information. That is 100 times the threshold where the search resources of the observed cosmos are hopelessly overwhelmed by the scope of the config space. That is a cosmos-level search rounds down to no search. 7 --> When we come to origin of major body plans by chance variation and natural seleciton, the problem compounds, as these will have to be embryologically feasible, starting withthe core structures of life forms. The scope of typical DNA for multicellular animals suggests we are looking at 10 mn plus bits of novel funcitonally integrated information, dozens of times over, and if we take the conventional timeline, with a window of maybe 10 Mn y, to at most 100 mn yr, 500+ MYA. On earth, not even in the galaxy. The search resources of the solar system would reduce the feasible scope of proposed macroevo by chance variation plus natural selection to about 109 bits. Or a reasonably short protein. 8 --> Just so stories are not enough anymore, we need to see credible, empirically warranted accounts of the origin of he informaiton. We know that intelligence routinely produces information well beyond that threshold, and that we have ONLY observed intelligence doing that. So, to infer to intelligence acting through directed contingency as the best explanation of the complex organisaiton of cell based life is well warranted. 8 --> You are also extremely caustic and dismissive of he biblical worldview and its adherents, coming down to one version or another of Dawkins' outrageous: ignorant, stupid insane or wicked. 9 --> This is utterly unacceptable. 10 --> I think you need to first understand and accept the limitations of origins sciences accounts of the deep and unobserved past, cf here and here, and in light of an acid remark in Job 38, where YHWH at length speaks from the storm and says:
Jb 38:1 . . . the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? . . .
11 --> In short when we seek to reconstruct the remote past of origins on observations in the present and speculations, we should realise just how provisional our theories are, and that the sort of Lewontinian a priori materialism that is too often imposed on origins is an implicit, massive injection of question-begging philosophical materialism that blinkers science. [Cf the first of the two links in 10 just above.] 12 --> Finally, on the Biblical worldview, you need to reckon with the epistemological home base of that faith befroe so confidently dismissing it, e.g. cf here for starters. 13 --> As a footnote, observe the intellectual history of Mr Dodgen: he started as an atheist and has become a Biblical theist in adult life, on serious personal reflection including on scientific issues. He is a highly intelligent and educated man, who has thought for himself and changed his mind not on childhood prejudices but evidence. That cuts clean across the sort of rhetoric you put forth above. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, I agree with much of what you said, especially that the word love needs to be narrowed down to be discussed sensibly. It will take time for me to consider your points carefully (2,500 well-wrought words!), and I will try to respond as time permits. ***In the meantime, will you instruct me in how to post smileys (emoticons) on this blog? I was cheered by your closing smiley and would reciprocate if I knew how.***Pedant_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Bruce David,
there is no evidence whatsoever, either observational or experimental, that random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing macro-evolutionary change. In fact, what experimental and observational evidence there is points in the opposite direction, as Behe (The Edge of Evolution) and many others have pointed out.
Thank you for a good answer. I am however afraid you may be jumping to conclusions. The evidence mentioned seen in isolation doesn’t point any in any direction. It is when we view the evidence from a long list of subjects that we detect a strong correlation pointing unequivocally in a particular direction: Then we realize that what we are seeing is the result of natural processes – although we cannot rule out that God may have made it that way by applying his unlimited magical powers. But what evidence do we have that biology is different than any other aspect of nature? When we study biology in action today, we only observe natural processes at work. All the miraculous things we observe in the world today are the work of natural forces. From a time when everything under the sun was attributed to gods at work, the universe has been found to be very capable of getting by by and of itself. WRT Edge of Evolution, it seems there is considerable disagreement over whether Behe has found any edge and IMHO his method of detecting design is not very impressive to say the least. As you probably know, there are even well qualified people that due to the religious bias instilled in them from early childhood are incapable of seeing the Bible for what it is; instead they insist on the six day creation myth and all the rest of the Bible being literally true. YEC proponent Kurt Wise makes it clear as far as he is concerned, whatever evidence there may be, faith takes precedence and that’s that. The long history of creationism and arguments used by creationists, arguments that by and by have been abandoned because the evidence against them became too obvious does not inspire faith in ID either; maybe ID actually is, as often claimed, just another turn on the screw of creationism? There are far too many questions asked of ID that needs to be answered. We need evidence for the identity of the designer, evidence for how and when he performs, and much more. We are also learning that although RM&NS is a fundamental concept, it is far from being all there is to the mechanism of evolution. The fact that ID was invented for use as a wedge in the scientific worldview does not inspire much confidence either. What progress has ID made since its inception, what tangible evidence has ID got to show for itself? As far as I am concerned, I still only see Behe and the movement with an empty box.Cabal_{September 18, 2010
September
09
Sep
18
18
2010
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Pendant, Another issue regarding slavery: What time in world history do you suppose had the most slaves? Would you believe that it is today? Well, If we define slavery as forced labor, there are currently 27 million people in the world who fit into that category, according to Anti-Slavery International. However, the International Labor Organization uses a different definition: "coercion in forced labour, slavery and slavery-like practices," into which 12 million people fit. But still. Do you think we've become more enlightened? Collective evil exists despite what we might assert regarding our evolving moral trends. I just took notice (not that I wasn't already aware) that I've now addressed 4 long posts to you. I'll stop now. :)CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

Pedant, "Bear in mind that laws change with the times. At one time in parts of the United States, slaves were considered to be property. (The Dred Scott decision is worth rereading.)" While it is true that laws change, this does not negate the premise that laws are based in value judgments and the bases for those judgments do not change. You cite the Dread Scott decision. Slavery in America is perhaps her worst national sin. I would put abortion right next to it. But there is something about slavery that thinking people of moral aptitude understood even in light of the Dred Scott decision. Slavery existed in America despite the distaste in it even among those who "owned" slaves, including persons such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Slavery existed not simply because the Bible mentioned it's use and provided an ethic by which to regulate it. This is a misconception. While the Bible was used to justify slavery, slavery existed largely due to the tobacco trade in Virginia prior to the establishment of the union. In other words, it was economic factors, which provided the primary basis for the existence of slavery in the United States. What's important about this is that the economic issues did not provide for an "ought" with regard to slavery; partly due to the fact that the economic factors had their own "ought," which was appealed to in order ton supersede the issue of slavery. You say that laws change, but laws change particularly in the US with respect to new understanding of what was already accepted as an "ought." That slavery was wrong was not something, which developed as history unfolded closer to its abolition. Many people in America knew that slavery was an "evil exploitation of men." In fact, one of the first 13 states; Massachusetts had already abolished slavery prior to the Declaration Convention. So I fail to see the relevance of mentioning slavery as if we came to our senses and decided it was evil. It was evil prior to the establishment of our nation, and many people understood so. The fact that humans do evil things to one another and then sometimes eventually correct those evils is not an example of the basis for morality changing, but of humans becoming aware of morality and having the courage to stand up to evil based on their awareness of those prime bases for morality having been forgotten or abandoned. Collective evil is not so easily accounted for in such terms as the relative basis for morality. So slavery existed in America prior to the formation of the union (as far back as the 1650s), it was viewed among a large number of Americans as evil - particularly in Northern states, and it was justified based primarily on factors of economic stability. The issue of slavery did not make it into the US constitution until the 13th Amendment of 1865. Prior to that, the word was never mentioned, although other words, which alluded to slavery were used. The issue of human rights in general prior to that time was more established in America by the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self evident.....". However, that declaration was not intended as the basis for the structure of law. So when we get to Dred Scott, slavery had already been established as an American institution, and in all accounts the institution was perfected, and supported through moral compromise, neglect of basic principles of human rights, arguments alluding to a "parade of horribles" should the institution be abandoned, and other such factors, which prevented America from recognizing collectively that there was no rational moral basis for such an institution. Dred Scott was an exercise in failure to refer to the obvious; the issues of whether a natural born slave was a citizen of America is really a secondary issue. The primary issue, which should have been considered but was not, is that which was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Simple enough, but as happenstance would have it, this was not in the constitution. Perhaps it should have been. That particular statement finds it's foundation in scripture, by the way. So the moral basis for the evils of slavery are found in a very early American document; but it was the wrong document, unfortunately. More on slavery with respect to the constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.htmlCannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Pedant, "In the contrary, my courses in civics taught me that laws are based on value judgments, such as fairness." Precisely my point. Laws are based on moral value judgments. Where to the morals come from upon which laws are derived? If you say that morals come from what we like and what we dislike, this is incoherent, as I've amply demonstrated with respect to the rapist. My point is further that if in society we followed the prescripts of Darwinian morality, we would have no objective laws. We would have anarchy. But, thankfully, we do not base them so.CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Pedant, "I do not consider my value judgments to be fanciful." I'm not certain you grasped what I meant by "fancy." This was in response to your assertion that what we like we call good and what we dislike we call bad: ie, merely choosing good and bad from our fancy - from our subjective preferences, as opposed to from something outside ourselves. Let me give you an example from your own responses as to why this is not so, and then clarify: "I’ve had the good fortune of having been brought up to respect other people’s rights, and I’ve incorporated into my moral compass the view that rape is a violent act against another person’s autonomy." You state here that you were "brought up," i.e., taught to respect other peoples' rights. I gather by this that perhaps if you hadn't been taught by someone outside yourself, you might have fancied not respecting others' rights, and by your basis of value as subjective, coming from within, you'd have every right to not respect others' rights. However, since you were taught that you ought to respect peoples' rights, this came from outside yourself. IOW, you may have been taught this despite whether you liked to respect others' rights or not. This is an example of what I mean when I say that I disagree that our values of good are based on what we like and our values of bad are based on what we don't like. It is much more than simply what we like or dislike. Now let's deal with the rape issue. It seems to me that you were taught that rape is objectively wrong. Or rather, you based your value that rape is wrong on the fact that it is a violation of a person's autonomy. I would agree with that, but I would go much further: it is a disregard for the dignity of the individual as being created in the image of God; it devalues the victim as well as the perpetrator. It is a vile and debase act of violence and inhumanity. While it is true that it is something that normal people find objectionable and wouldn't do; this is not the moral basis for why it is wrong. Darwinists believe in the subjective and relative nature of our values. In other words, if normal people did believe that rape was good; there is nothing in Darwinism with which to base an objection. However, if the Darwinist were to say; "well rape is a vile and debase act of violence and inhumanity, which devalues both the victim and the perpetrator," the Darwinist is appealing to an objective value judgment sort of truth about the nature of rape, without having a basis in objective truth. Also, while you have "incorporated into your moral compass that rape is a violent act against a person's moral autonomy," what do you do with the person (and such people exist), who has not incorporated this into their moral compass, and who's actions demonstrate this? By your basis for morality as coming from within, why is the perpetrator's value coming from within that rape is perfectly OK, not legitimate? Is your moral compass for yourself only, or do you expect that others will also act according to the same compass?CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Sorry for the ??????s. I cut and pasted the original words in Koine Greek, and this is how they appeared once I hit "submit."CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

"As I said, it depends on the kind of love. A bit of love of power or of wealth may be “good,” in my eyes, but I consider excessive love of power or of wealth to be “bad.” Your mileage may vary. Do you see the subjective qualities of “good” and “bad”?" Ah, yes I see what you mean. Since we've been on the subject of CS Lewis recently, he wrote a little gem of a book Called "The Four Loves," in which he explores aspects of human love. You might want to check that one out. I think there's a need to clarify love here, as you implied. Love can mean many things in English from love of my cat to love of gambling. But I think the general idea we're referring to here is love towards another human being, whether it is romantic love, familial love, platonic love or acts of love towards a stranger or a group of people. I failed to clarify this. I don't think we mean the type of love you're referring to as towards objects or activities. Certainly we don't love going to restaurants in the same way as we lover our friends; although I can imagine that there are people who have trouble distinguishing these categories. So Let's agree to narrow the category here to human love, and see where we go. Agreed? And in so doing, I think it might be even more beneficial if we refer to scriptural examples from First Corinthians:13, so we're not confusing for example lust from love. While 1Cor comes from Christian scriptures, there's nothing in these examples, which are exclusively Christian, so I think they are helpful in defining what we mean: 1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (from the NIV) There is a distinction between 1Cor's description of love here and what you referred to earlier, for the scriptures also state: "The love of money is the route of all kinds of evil." The love of money clearly is distinguished from the type of love described above, and in the Koine Greek language what is translated as "love" in one passage is not the same Greek word that is translated as love in another. For example, the "love" of 1 Cor. is the Greek word "agape:" (?????) (and I'm not a Greek scholar, so if one is present, please correct me if I'm wrong). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape Agape means "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being." This is also what the scriptures refer to as the love expressed by God towards human beings. Compare these examples with 1 Cor's descriptions of love, and you see that the scriptural concept of agape has certain characteristics, which are generally manifest when determining aspects of love towards others. Certainly we can agree that being rude towards someone is not a manifestation of agape love. When we're rude we don't intend well-being. The term for the "love of money" found in First Timothy 6:10 is the Greek term "philarguria." (??????????) it could be argued that while in English we use the word "love" to mean many different things, in the language of the New Testament, there are several meanings to what bible translators translate as "love." I'd like to stick with agape love for the sake of our discussion, and leave philarguria and other types of love for perhaps another discussion. So if I may frame the question again and in reference to what 1Cor:13 says about love (agape), is love good or bad? I'm anticipating that this clarification would necessitate your answer to be "good." As such, "love" as defined in scripture when correctly understood from the original Greek (agape), is good. It is not bad, and if it is, it is not love. Therefore, love in this category is an "ought" and not an "is." It is a value judgment. I would argue that the other categories of love are also "oughts" or "ought-nots," and are also value judgments. I'll respond to the rest of your post as I have time.CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, My only intent in positing the question is in stating pretty much what Clive so succinctly clarified. Thank you for explaining why you asked. I think in truth your answer is that love is a good thing, even though you appear to avoid being so bold. And my point is simply that such is a value judgement. I fail to see how this is so difficult. As I said, it depends on the kind of love. A bit of love of power or of wealth may be “good,” in my eyes, but I consider excessive love of power or of wealth to be “bad.” Your mileage may vary. Do you see the subjective qualities of “good” and “bad”? As to love being a value judgment, I can see that there might be an element of judgment about the love-worthiness of the loved person or object, but as I have experienced love of persons, the judgment doesn’t come before the feeling, and it doesn’t account for it. Also, I disagree quite emphatically that we merely call what we like good and what we dislike bad. Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. Some people like cigarettes. Does that make them good? Some people hate people of certain races. Does that make people of those races bad? Is there no other basis for your value judgments apart from fancy? I do not consider my value judgments to be fanciful. I may consider yours to be fanciful, depending on what they are. In any case, I don’t find love to be exclusively a value judgment If I may illustrate this with a question that might strike at our emotions a bit more intensely, “is rape bad simply because we dislike it?” If we all of a sudden start liking rape, would that make it good? If I witness someone being raped, and it is clear that the person does not like it, while the perpetrator seems to enjoy doing it; does rape have then two contradictory values at the same time? I’ve had the good fortune of having been brought up to respect other people’s rights, and I’ve incorporated into my moral compass the view that rape is a violent act against another person’s autonomy. I would be outraged if someone tried to rape me. So, I’m not about to suddenly start liking rape and judging it “good.” I live in trust and hope that the great majority of my fellow humans have been similarly socialized. How could we then come up with any laws based on value judgments? I think the obvious answer is “we could not.” In the contrary, my courses in civics taught me that laws are based on value judgments, such as fairness. I find considerations like that to form an adequate rationale for their legitimacy. Bear in mind that laws change with the times. At one time in parts of the United States, slaves were considered to be property. (The Dred Scott decision is worth rereading.)Pedant_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply