Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

O’Leary’s recent columns of interest : On neuroscience implications/applications of intelligent design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For links to all go here.

1. A recent ChristianWeek column: Faith@Science: The God gene? Spot? Circuit? Okay, maybe a Module?

(Note: This is the column I wrote shortly after finishing my work on The Spiritual Brain, explaining why notions of a God spot, gene, module, or circuit in the brain are completely ridiculous.)

For more go here.

2. Another recent ChristianWeek column:“Made in the image of God”? What does that mean?

Ever hear of a “humanzee”? Some would hail the hybrid of a human and a chimpanzee as a crowning achievement.

Because chimpanzees are our closest genetic relatives, hybrids have been attempted. According to recently unearthed documents, Joseph Stalin hoped to produce half-man, half-ape super-warriors, but the project came to nothing. The disgraced chief scientist died in the vast Soviet prison system.

But just as often, anti-religious motives fuel the wish for a humanzee. Zoologist Richard Dawkins, who promotes atheism from his chair at Oxford University, has proclaimed that such a hybrid would shake up all our value systems. He argues that differences between the human mind and the chimpanzee mind are only a matter of degree, not kind. Indeed, Spain has been considering giving great apes human rights, and some have argued seriously for reclassifying chimpanzees in the same genus as humans.

For more go here.

3. A third recent ChristianWeek columns: Faith as one of the healing arts

According to an article in Jewish World Review (October 3, 2006) hospitals in the United States have finally begun to pay attention to patients’ religious beliefs. “The last thing you want to worry about while somebody is sick is that they might have to transgress on something they believe in,” says Zahava Cohen, Englewood Hospital’s patient care director (New Jersey). Cohen is surely right; and we can only hope that this trend spreads.

[ … ]

The way in which we receive health care makes a huge difference to its ultimate effect. This reality has long been disguised under the misnamed and misunderstood “placebo” effect. Literally, the word means “I will please.” Originally, it referred to sugar pills given to a patient who believes that they are potent. Over one third of patients get better simply because they think the placebo is a powerful medicine. The placebo effect probably underlies traditional shamanism. The reason so many tribal Christians continue to surreptitiously visit shamans is not that they are deluded into believing that shamanism works but because it so often does work. Unfortunately, the shaman typically attributes the healing to specific bizarre practices rather than to the power of belief to trigger healing processes.

For more go here.

Comments
“There is grandeur in this view of life …” There is!? To each his own, I guess. I find that view of life dull and dreary and ugly and hopeless. In the beginning the purpose of science was to find God. If we now proclaim that he cannot be found then the answer is not what we had hoped. Also if you let the Designer in the door—even at the very beginning—then there’s no need for Darwin. If the first cell exhibits real design, then why must all subsequent manifestation of the same be only “the appearance of design”? The real question is whether Darwinism is anything other than the pseudoscience that Karl Popper originally thought it was. If it’s just a fairytale, as most of us here believe it is, then why would conservatives want to embrace it? Thus it’s good that the conservative community engages in the debate—it’s the central issue, the big question, the foundation for everything else. And so we need folks like Larry Arnhart to put forth the best case for Darwin. If we don’t think about it and talk about it and argue it then we’re vulnerable before those who would lead us further into multiculturalism and on to the island of doctor Moreau. The Left knows instinctively that Darwin was their apostle—hence the extremes in their attack on his detractors.Rude
December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."Arnhart
December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
JasonTheGreek I agree with Rude- once you posit that a designer was involved in bringing about life or aspects of biology, you’ve left the Darwinian camp and come over to some idea of intelligent design. Tis is why nearly all the major names in NDE posit a process that is opposed to any designer, design, etc…it’s all about “happy accidents”- no point, no purpose, no rhyme or reason to it all…just blind natural processes that got lucky and brought about life and eventually human beings to ponder these issues. I'd agree with that as well - which is why I don't understand the hostility sometimes seen between ID and TE camps. In the end, I think the same evidence that a 'darwinist' can point at and say, 'Chance!' is the exact evidence someone in the ID camp can point at and say 'Design!' - or a TE sympathizer can point at and say.. I'm not sure. Ultimate intention? Which is one worry I have when it comes to the ID movement. I think a lot of progress and work is ready to be made philosophically - because philosophy is where the bulk of the fight lies anyway. When scientists rule out design and intention in evolution and start throwing around words like chance and 'illusion of design', they're no longer making a scientific claim, or coming to a scientific conclusion. But hey, I'm preaching to the choir here.nullasalus
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
In regards to comment 6- I don't see any way of wedding the idea that the soul just "emerged" after the primate brain reached a certain level of complexity to the idea that God created us all with souls. If a soul just emerged, then it wasn't created, and that means it wasn't the result of God. I don't think many NT scholars would see this as a possible marriage at all. Furthermore- if you're positing that an intelligent designer worked through darwinian processes to bring about the soul- I'm a bit confused from the start. NDE posits that these things aren't the result of a purpose or intent by any designer...just the opposite. How would a designer work thru NDE when darwin, in his books, specifically set out to theorize a path to all of this WITHOUT a designer? All throuhout his books, he brings up his theories and stands them in direct opposition to the idea that they were created, that there was ever a creator or designer responsible for it all, etc. Sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I agree with Rude- once you posit that a designer was involved in bringing about life or aspects of biology, you've left the Darwinian camp and come over to some idea of intelligent design. Tis is why nearly all the major names in NDE posit a process that is opposed to any designer, design, etc...it's all about "happy accidents"- no point, no purpose, no rhyme or reason to it all...just blind natural processes that got lucky and brought about life and eventually human beings to ponder these issues. I see no way of taking that worldview and combining with the idea of a purpose or point or a designer. Clearly, in the NT, there is the idea that the soul and spirit can exist outside the body. We're told we will be resurrected when Christ returns, but that our bodies won't be the ones we have now- but rather heavenly bodies that never die...which makes the part about our own bodies now being a vital part of the equation. I don't have a heavenly body now- I assume my soul and spirit- what makes me the unique person I am, will be somehow put into my heavenly body.JasonTheGreek
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Arnhart in 6, But “emergence” begs the question by reducing everything to mechanism—I fail to see how it differs from reductionism. Consciousness and free will “supervene” on computational and/or stimulus-response complexity, but there isn’t the foggiest of a theory as to how. So why should I be impressed with “emergence”? Still you make a good point. In the Bible “immortality requires the resurrection of the body, as opposed to ancient Greek dualism of body of soul.” There is a biblical basis to the teaching that without the body the soul sleeps. And there is also a biblical basis for seeing ourselves as tripartite beings—“spirit and soul and body” as in 1Thessalonians 5:23. In the Torah “bone and flesh” stand in for the body (Genesis 2:23), the soul is the center of desire and will and moral responsibility (Lev 17:11; Deut 12:15; Ezekiel 18:4, 20), and--biblically speaking here--the spirit pretty much corresponds to information and design and understanding (Exodus 31:3; Isaiah 11:2; 1Corinthians 2:9-11). Now the question is this: are soul and spirit reducible to body? The materialists say yes, but others, including Angus Menuge in Agents Under Fire and Denyse, in her forthcoming book I’m sure, say otherwise. My sense is that Intelligent Design should not postulate that design emerges from mechanism alone. Rather material and design and soul are all fundamental, and it is the soul that imposes design on material. That way it’s not “turtles all the way down”. You say, “So why shouldn’t we see Darwinian emergent evolution as the way in which the Intelligent Designer worked? … After all, there is no obvious reason to believe that the Intelligent Designer was unable or unwilling to employ evolutionary causes to execute His design.” But haven’t you been listening?! The whole point of Darwin is that what we see is only “the appearance of design” and therefore there is no need for a designer. If an “Intelligent Designer worked” through a process of chance and necessity sans agency, why that’s an oxymoron if there ever was one! The minute you invoke an Intelligent Designer in the evolution of life you are no longer a Darwinist—you are on the side of Intelligent Design.Rude
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Hello Shaner74, The first time I heard about epilepsy/temporal lobe thing, I was explaining to a forum of young collegiates about my own mystical experience of the Holy Spirit. I was assured by one of them that I had had a 'temporal lobe seizure.' Now, I have taken care of plenty of epilepsy patients and witnessed a few seizures, and what happened to me is about as opposite to that as you can get. Seizures are destructive, and leave the person fatigued and ennervated. I got on the net and found one of the main guys who did this research, and who claimed to have temproal lobe epilepsy, esp. as a child, and he told me that he did not think I had any seizure or epilepsy, and that my experience sounded genuine. He was not a materialist. O'Leary says, about her book-- "Meanwhile, there is good evidence for the independent existence of a mind, apart from the brain. Based on evidence, it is also reasonable to believe that people who have deep religious experiences contact something beyond themselves." I agree wholeheartedly with that. But I do not at all agree that there cannot be a part of the brain (yes, probably in the temporal lobe) which processes and receives spiritual experiences. In fact, considering all the functions of the brain, how could there not be? That would be a real oversight! It might even be that one of humanity's problems is that this area is poorly functioning, or deactivated. It seems to me that although mind is independent of brain, that so long as we are in our bodies, we use our brains for absolutely every activity we ever engage in. People seem to think that if there is an area of the brain in use while having a spiritual experience, that this somehow invalidates spiritual experience. Not so. It is possible that some epileptics get a stimulation to that part of the brain as an accidental byproduct of their seizure activity. But that does not mean that a spiritual experience constitutes a seizure or malfunction of any sort. That materialists quickly assume that evolution tricks us into absurd and false experiences of reality just shows their bias. For, if I were a theistic evolutionist, I would instead assume that our brains evolved to reveal to us actualities.avocationist
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
“Not only that, but religion can be traced to defects in the temporal lobe. Paul the Apostle, Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila, and Th‚rŠse of Lisieux were all epileptics, and that explains their careers.” I’ve seen this “epilepsy” thing so many times I’ve lost count. Every time I hear something about “visions” or whatever, I know the epilepsy shtick isn’t far behind. I will be getting your book for sure. I’m very interested in the mind-body connection – more so than the evolution controversy. The way I see it, even if there is a God, it doesn’t matter unless we truly have a soul.shaner74
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Arnhart, So why shouldn’t we see Darwinian emergent evolution as the way in which the Intelligent Designer worked? After all, there is no obvious reason to believe that the Intelligent Designer was unable or unwilling to employ evolutionary causes to execute His design. I'm looking forward to the day where someone posits design in evolution itself. I think a strong case can be made for it, and I think if such a case is made, some heads will be exploding. Theistic evolution is nice - I personally lean towards it - but so far it's just been a statement of position, rather than (from what I've seen) a developed philosophy.nullasalus
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
There is an alternative to either reductionism or dualism, which is emergence. We could explain the soul as an emergent product of the brain. Once the primate brain passes over a critical threshold of size and complexity, novel properties emerge that could not be explained or predicted by knowledge of the lower levels. This would be consistent with the New Testament teaching that the soul depends on the body, so that immortality requires the resurrection of the body, as opposed to ancient Greek dualism of body of soul. So why shouldn't we see Darwinian emergent evolution as the way in which the Intelligent Designer worked? After all, there is no obvious reason to believe that the Intelligent Designer was unable or unwilling to employ evolutionary causes to execute His design.Arnhart
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
No clashing plaids with solids or colors that don’t go together on any critter. A naturalist would say "thats because you don't live in a plaid world". If you lived in a plaid world, then that would be normal, and other color combinations would look wrong. For moral sense, thats just an illusion, and for humor, are you forgetting the recent study that said that laughter started because one of our ancestors fell off a log, and another one made a clicking sound in response. Eventually, that clicking sound turned into laughter.ajl
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
To the list of things the material brain alone cannot account for I would add: - Moral sense - Humor - Music - Art Also, a thought I've had on design in nature; ever notice how the colors, forms, and arrangments all match? No clashing plaids with solids or colors that don't go together on any critter.dacook
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
My naïve intuition tells me that the brain alone cannot explain two phenomena. First it cannot account for consciousness/free will. And second is the question of logical/mathematical realism: Are there universals of logic that are “out there”?—not just hardwired Darwinian fashion in the brain. Such universals must encompass the Peircean triad of logic - ethics - esthetics. Anyway for agency and universals I’ve enjoyed Angus Menuge and J. Budziszewski—but I’m sure you’re way ahead of me.Rude
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
"So keep up the good fight! I look forward to purchasing and reading your book on “neuroscience implications/applications of intelligent design”. " I second that. I had enough of the materialistic rubbish. I am waiting also for Behe's new book , will be available in summer.IDist
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
The most important question facing us today is: Are we designed? For if we are not designed then no moral tradition carries any weight whatsoever because all of them were founded in mythologies which cannot stand up to Dennett’s “universal acid”. The barbarians are at the gate!! “‘I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,’ Professor Singer told the rapt audience in Harold Helm Auditorium.” So keep up the good fight! I look forward to purchasing and reading your book on "neuroscience implications/applications of intelligent design".Rude
December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply