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

There is only one explanation for why anyone does anything, and it logically follows that one thing is also the reason Gil's threads always get so long: sex. All of you must have some sort of behavior programmed into you that subconsciously makes you believe posting on Gil's threads will help you procreate more proficiently. Except for me of course because I'm the only one in the entire world capable of rising above my more basic Darwinian instincts.tragic mishap_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Winston, they are anti-atoms on this blog. I sometimes feel like starting an atom appreciation society.zeroseven_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

I certainly would not rely on an IDist or a Christian to tell me what love is. I defer to Shakespeare, Joy Division, David Lynch, and Nick Cave for that.zeroseven_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Since it seems to be a fairly open thread, and I dont mind boosting Gils numbers, could someone tell us what progress has been made with ID ? Please note, Im not referring to the demolition of Evolution (lets take that as given). How far have you progressed with a description of ID ? (How it works, when it happens, etc etc). Any progress reports ?Graham_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Winston, Because atoms in motion amount to only an "is" whereas love is an "ought". That's why, the is/ought fallacy, for starters. Material only has properties like size, weight, distance, speed, velocity, etc., not qualities or metaphysical aspects like love and dignity.Clive Hayden_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Berceuse: However, sometimes his posts have a subtle resonance of conceit, and as Equinoxe has pointed out, it can be off-putting. Anyone with a name associated with Chopin's piano compositions cannot possibly be all bad. As far as the resonance-of-conceit proposal goes (I like the musical reference), I refuse to admit any guilt, culpability, responsibility, or even any recognition of the fact that I have done anything wrong, despite my reprehensible arrogance. I'm just the result of the laws of physics, with no free will, as Stephen Hawking just announced in his latest book. On the subject of reprehensible arrogance I amend my original thesis to suggest the following: I am so brilliant, so insightful, so provocative, and so articulate -- my short UD posts being filled with endless, unfathomable truths -- that the subject included in the OP immediately mutates into endless discussions about relatively irrelevant other stuff. All of which is important and highly significant, thanks to the gems of wisdom included in my opening dissertations.GilDodgen_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

NZer@41
Love? Well, that would simply be atoms in motion, right? I mean, what else is there? Such feeling are just chemical reactions, similar but different to a leaf that curls up when placed under s flame…
I've never understood the logic behind this argument (one seen frequently here at UD). Why don't atoms in motion count? I love my daughter. If it wasn't for atoms in motion I wouldn't know that I had a daughter. I couldn't see her, hear her, touch her. And, likely, making her would have been a lot less fun. But seriously, so what if love, happiness, pity are 'just' atoms in motion. Does that make them any less real, any less significant, any less important to the atoms in motion that are typing this response right now. I (and by I, I'm referring to a particular grouping of ever changing atoms) see no reason it should, indeed I find it astounding and beautiful that my love for my daughter is not merely some 'spiritual' feeling but a true physical phenomenon. It seems many on the ID side find it distasteful to the point of insulting and I'm not sure why. Could you possibly offer and explanation?Winston Macchi_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Borne @33, Your points on love don't seem cogent to me. My understanding of love as being a by-product of the mind and body makes it able to be described. If I understand you, love has some "meaning" or "value" beyond what people would communicate to one another about it. I fail to see how this view supports itself. I agree with you that "A universe that makes sense is required for both reason and science to exist." We might clarify to say "makes sense to us," as sense is in the eye of the beholder. Those Lewis quotes do nothing for me, esp. the first one which sounds nice but has little actual substance. Equinoxe @37, While we both might agree on the idea that trees exist independently of people, I am unaware of a good case that love has a similar, seperate existence. I'm not sure of your point in the rest of your reply. Our ability to "feel," our sense of having feelings is not equivalent to the universe "feeling." Sorry, I'm puzzled by your statements. Clive Hayden@ 34, I believe we are making the same point.LarTanner_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

"The vast majority of scientists carry on in their endeavours without a thought for ID." That may be true outside the biological sciences, but how would you know this? Certainly Dawkins, Meyers, et al do not carry on without a thought for ID, whatever that means.CannuckianYankee_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

equinoxe, "One can be a non-materialist subscriber to Darwin’s theory of natural selection." True. However, one must subscribe to what Gould temed NOMA to one degree or another. For a lot of thinking theists, NOMA is intellectually shallow. If God exists, NOMA is simply false.CannuckianYankee_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Pendant, #12: "Because you love your spouse, your children, your parents, and they are counting on you?" Love? Well, that would simply be atoms in motion, right? I mean, what else is there? Such feeling are just chemical reactions, similar but different to a leaf that curls up when placed under s flame...NZer_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee #39:
necessarily materialistic assumptions
Sorry to be pedantic. Darwinian theory does not invoke necessarily materialistic assumptions. (One can be a non-materialist subscriber to Darwin's theory of natural selection.) But, arguably, the converse is true: materialistic assumptions might be said to lead necessarily to something like Darwinian theory.equinoxe_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

One of the reasons why Gil's posts elicit so many responses, in my view, is because he touches on areas, which open up to the implications of ID. What if ID is true and Darwinism is simply a long-winded farce? For some, this may touch a nerve. For others, it opens up many possibilities. If we're not simply the result of random acts of nature, but have meaning and purpose that is intrinsic to our makeup, then regardless of our religious leanings, ID offers answers to some deeper questions (not necessarily intended by the theory). For atheists who respond positively to ID, it opens up a lot of unanswered questions, which Darwinian theory does not seem to even want to answer, nor can it by its necessarily materialistic assumptions. For theists, ID confirms what is intuitively understood from areas outside of empirical science, but no less valid.CannuckianYankee_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

The vast majority of scientists carry on in their endeavours without a thought for ID.

Evolutionary theory (and antipathy to ID) is common to the vast majority of scientists all over the world and the majority of people in the Western world outside the USA.
(Both full quotes have "Western" in. Lends each one a certain air of superiority. N'est-ce pas?) What I referred to above as "condescension from a position of numerical superiority". It is simply hiding in a crowd. It doesn't help to establish the truth or falsity of anything. It is a curious inversion of a conspiracy theory in which everything in the official record is greeted with the most jaw-droppingly naive acceptance rather than cynicism. Besides, isn't citing how many people believe in something treading on rather shaky ground?
...discussed in the media without the merest hint of controversy...
A rather odd state of affairs. But I thought the ID movement essentially operated through the media not the "proper channels"? The media's response can be more or less accounted for by two motivations: (1) pandering to scientists and their readers' sense of being scientifically informed and sophisticated, and (2) any sign of discord. Hence the media's "love-hate" relationship with ID. Usually they fulfil both agendas by telling the story about the discord in the academy, and then bring "real scientists" in as heroes at the end of the story. If you have the column inches free, throw in a moral story or two about how "medieval times" are on their way back if we entertain an idea.
SO if this is a state-sponsored religion it is sponsored by an awful lot of states working together.
These states share a common philosophy, which steers them in the same direction. No ID supporter believes that states "work together" in the sense that governments collude. But it is no stretch of the imagination to think that their advisors and lobbying groups do.equinoxe_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

This is a blog. We need some occasional distraction, and possibly fun. ... It is not my intent to brag.
Fair enough. I had a long day. I'll lighten up a bit :p (<- see!). I still stand by my general point though. gpuccio @26:
I’d rather be pre or post Darwinian thinking, indeed both, than Darwinian.
Of course, I meant post-Darwin in the "post 1859" sense, as opposed to the way it has come to be used in the 21st C! LarTanner,
Love does not "exist." It is not a real thing but an emotion felt by a person through means of the body.
Thanks for your comments. Some replies in a friendly spirit? Everything studied by science is made known to us via the body. Emotions are as real as anything we encounter in life. Just as real as measuring the temperature of a liquid or the distance of a star. Would you be happy if I said, "Trees do not 'exist.' They are not real things but the sense of green and brown textures in my mind's eye, the imagined sensation of bark, etc." Also,
The argument that the universe is “blind, pitiless indifference” is an opinion. It has no bearing on the actual physical workings of the universe.
I agree---Dawkins' opinion, I believe. But there is more than the physical workings of the universe. People in the universe show or feel pity; at least, this person does. So at least one part of the universe feels pity. (One of those rare occasions where I can be certain of something even to a Cartesian extent!) If you wish to persist in believing that the universe does not feel pity, you must accept that I - or some part of me - am not part of the physical workings of the universe.
Standards of pity...
An odd turn of phrase, as you moved from talking about feelings of pity to standards of pity. Really there is not a standard of pity any more than there is a standard of pain. Of course, people can show pity. But this really means that their emotional state moves them to some action, e.g., mercy. It is perfectly possible to talk about varying standards of mercy in different cultures.
As I have indicated, we humans can judge the sense and difference between the standards of different times, societies, and cultures.
Which humans are in such a privileged position? (The Western ones, I presume?) And if they are, how do they come by this canonical knowledge that allows them to measure others' standards (e.g., pity) from the outside?equinoxe_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

The underlying theme of this post is something that constantly astounds me. That is that the theory of evolution is under threat, in its dying days etc, and that ID is mounting a legitimate attack and its only a matter of time before the prevailing orthodoxy comes tumbling down. I am sorry, but this is delusional. Wishful thinking. The vast majority of scientists carry on in their endeavours without a thought for ID. In the majority of western democracies outside of the US, new theories and discoveries in evolution are published and discussed in the media without the merest hint of controversy. The world that is described on these pages simply does not exist.zeroseven_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

(I am bit disappointed that noone is interested in exploring why some discussions are longer than others - but I guess that's life) #27 Gildogen let’s be clear as to the reason for Darwinian antipathy to ID: It undermines the creation myth of the state-sponsored religion of secular humanism Evolutionary theory (and antipathy to ID) is common to the vast majority of scientists all over the world and the majority of people in the Western world outside the USA. SO if this is a state-sponsored religion it is sponsored by an awful lot of states working together.markf_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

LarTanner, Love is an 'ought' which cannot be the result of an 'is'.Clive Hayden_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

LarTanner:
Love does not “exist.” It is not a real thing but an emotion felt by a person through means of the body. Is this not so?
If love does not exist how is it that you can describe what you think it is? And to your question, no, this is not so. You have applied an extreme oversimplification of what we call love. How do this "emotion" arise? Is it mere "feeling" (define 'feeling'?) or something more? If love is nothing but a "pack of neurons" it has no meaning and thus no value.
The argument that the universe is “blind, pitiless indifference” is an opinion. It has no bearing on the actual physical workings of the universe. If the argument has a bearing, I’d appreciate an explanation.
If there is no designer, no creator, then it is not a mere opinion but a hard fact. And no amount conjuring up, through mere neurons, some "personal" or "proximate" meaning will ever give it real meaning. A meaningless universe, having no bearing on the workings of the physical universe, is irrelevant to this argument.
Standards of pity/pitiless are human invention. We can compare the standards of different communities and cultures across time. We can even act as though the universe itself “has” standards. But I think it is an error to claim that the universe has an essence that involves pity or pitilessness. Are you claiming that the universe “is” or “is not” pitiless, independent of human emotional assessment?
You don't understand the point or you are merely caviling. A meaningless universe is necessarily indifferent to itself - as a metaphor. No one is claiming the physical universe has mind.
As I have indicated, we humans can judge the sense and difference between the standards of different times, societies, and cultures. So, I don’t see how we need the universe to “make sense” in order for us to apply our reasoning to questions of standards.
A universe that makes sense is required for both reason and science to exist. Here you are assuming that reason is valid. This is not the case if matter and energy is all there is. There is no way of knowing that reason is valid unless the universe is more than mere matter and energy. Information and logic are both metaphysical. As CS Lewis aptly said,
"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat." "Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe." "A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."
Borne_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

If only Darwinists understood their own theory and its incredible lack of explanatory power - once you start to look at the details.
“Biology is the study of the complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
Iow, materialism requires that one debunk the obvious design because of a priori prejudice against it.Borne_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

It looks like LarTanner's post appeared while mine was being processed by the server. Thanks to the moderators for letting both of our posts go through.Pedant_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden, Thank you for your comments. You said: The very fact that this love exists is an argument against the universe being nothing but “blind, pitiless indifference”. Why should a person care if the universe is indifferent to her feelings? She still loves her family. You can’t use an argument of pity to say that the universe is pitiless. I didn’t use that argument. I'm not arguing for an indifferent universe. I'm indifferent to whether the universe is interested or not in my feelings. If the universe were pitiless, we would have no standard of pity to make the argument that it was pitiless. Why does a person need a standard of pity or of any other emotion? These are feelings, not measurements of objects. How can a universe feel pity? If it was all senseless and indifferent from A to Z, and we were part of the show, we should have no alternative “true” and “objective” standards even to judge that it was senseless and indifferent, just as if we had no eyes we couldn’t describe light and darkness, they would both be without meaning. If a person loves another person, isn’t that a reality that is independent of any theory about a possible attitude of the universe?Pedant_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Responding to Mr. Hayden's post at #23, I wish to make a few relevant points: • Love does not “exist.” It is not a real thing but an emotion felt by a person through means of the body. Is this not so? • The argument that the universe is “blind, pitiless indifference” is an opinion. It has no bearing on the actual physical workings of the universe. If the argument has a bearing, I'd appreciate an explanation. • Standards of pity/pitiless are human invention. We can compare the standards of different communities and cultures across time. We can even act as though the universe itself “has” standards. But I think it is an error to claim that the universe has an essence that involves pity or pitilessness. Are you claiming that the universe "is" or "is not" pitiless, independent of human emotional assessment? • As I have indicated, we humans can judge the sense and difference between the standards of different times, societies, and cultures. So, I don’t see how we need the universe to “make sense” in order for us to apply our reasoning to questions of standards. To the moderators: Please allow this comment. I have attempted to draft a relevant comment in civil terms. I don't know what mark there is against me, but I feel my response meets basic standards for being posted here. If you decide not to allow my comment, will you please email me so I can know what I did to deserve being "banned" at UD? My email is lartanner [at] hotmail [dot] com. Thanks.LarTanner_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Benjamin Wiker's book "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists" is a fantastic resource for this topic.Bantay_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

It is not my intent to brag, just to make an observation and speculate as to an explanation for the phenomenon. Darwinists insist that if people just "understood" or were "adequately educated" concerning Darwinian evolution, they would accept it, so people like me represent a real threat, since very few people have been as educated (i.e., indoctrinated) in Darwinian orthodoxy as I was for almost 40 years. And let's be clear as to the reason for Darwinian antipathy to ID: It undermines the creation myth of the state-sponsored religion of secular humanism. Organizations like the NCSE and secular humanists like Eugenie Scott are not interested in science education, they're interested in isolating public school students from rational challenges to the cornerstone of their godless, materialistic worldview. On this topic, check out this interview with Casey Luskin: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2010-07-27T10_48_05-07_00 In defense of my claim that Darwinian orthodoxy is anti-intellectual, check out this interview with David Klinghoffer concerning prominent academic Darwinists who reviewed and trashed Signature in the Cell, and the author personally, without having read the book: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2010-05-24T15_34_12-07_00GilDodgen_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

equinoxe: I am just satisfied in being "non darwinian", Pre, post, and in the meanwhile.gpuccio_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Berceuse, Very much so. :)Clive Hayden_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Clive, for pointing that out. C.S Lewis fan? :)Berceuse_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Pedant,
Because you love your spouse, your children, your parents, and they are counting on you?
The very fact that this love exists is an argument against the universe being nothing but "blind, pitiless indifference". You can't use an argument of pity to say that the universe is pitiless. If the universe were pitiless, we would have no standard of pity to make the argument that it was pitiless. If it was all senseless and indifferent from A to Z, and we were part of the show, we should have no alternative "true" and "objective" standards even to judge that it was senseless and indifferent, just as if we had no eyes we couldn't describe light and darkness, they would both be without meaning.Clive Hayden_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Re: Equinoxe at 20 I agree. There's probably a better way to present the idea, but as it is, this post seems uncalled for. I may be overstepping my boundaries here, so I apologize in advance: I know that Gil is n intelligent, gifted, educated man with a good heart, and as far as the whole Darwinism vs. ID debate goes, I am on his side. However, sometimes his posts have a subtle resonance of conceit, and as Equinoxe has pointed out, it can be off-putting.Berceuse_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply