The essay stimulating this blog emerged from the Darwin Bicentennial year, when surveys of “educated lay people” in Switzerland revealed that only 20% had any clarity of thinking about Darwin’s theory of evolution. About half explained it in a circular way, another 20% implied some form of Lamarckism and the remaining 10% talked about evolution being a flow towards complexity. These responses evidence “poor understanding” and two major reasons are suggested to explain the observations. The first is “The theory of evolution is counterintuitive” and the second is “The theory of evolution opposes most people’s worldview”. The worldview issues are of considerable importance to the issues considered here. It is worth asking: what is a Darwinian worldview? and why do most people have a different worldview? The first paragraph of the essay is significant for its candour:
“Early teaching of the basic principles of science by qualified teachers, together with the creative involvement of scientists, will help the general public to appreciate what the theory of evolution calls for, namely a worldview based on reality rather than on mysticism and dogma.”
OK, so Jacques Dubochet, the author of the essay, is linking Darwinism to a worldview based on reality, and most of the general public, even those that are educated, have worldviews based on mysticism and dogma. At least this tells us where he’s coming from.
For more, go here.
‘You would not want to live next door to a materialist who lived consistently within his worldview’ – Paul Nelson
“OK, so Jacques Dubochet, the author of the essay, is linking Darwinism to a worldview based on reality, and most of the general public, even those that are educated, have worldviews based on mysticism and dogma.”
This is quite typical. The keynote speaker at the Darwinian Centennial celebration at the University of Chicago said that materialism eliminates the need for the props of traditional religion, and predicted that materialism would itself become a new religion to take the place of traditional religion. Dawkins famously said Darwinism makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Materialists take great pride in the idea that they alone have an understanding of reality and realize the absolute pointlessness of life, the universe and everything.
I should add that “Darwinism” (i.e., the materialistic story of the development of life on earth), is not necessarily the same as pure materialism. It is, however, the creation myth of the materialist, and as such, is often presented as supporting (or even necessitating) materialism.
Met my 1st ‘ID’ proponent the other day, and wanted to ask a question to someone who is a part of the ID movement… Google suggested this blog… so here goes:
At what point does an ID proponent declare that science does not ‘work’? I know that there are apologists for many subtle levels of ID, but in general my understanding is that there is some suggestion that 1)Earth is not billions of years old, and 2) humanity did not evolve from lower-order species… and the reason for both of these statements is “god did it”.
So the question is this: where is the disconnect? Does an ID proponent ‘believe’ in Dalton’s Law? Boyle’s Law? Newton’s Laws of Motion? Is one mole not always = 6.02X10^23? And not just chemistry, but physics as well… the Doppler effect, or ballistic motion, or the motion of photons through a vacuum… all of these are repeatable and predictable, and to my mind not at all dependent on ‘belief’.
Clearly chemistry and physics ‘work’. The reactions are predictable, repeatable, and universal. Your computer works… the electrons flow as they are ‘predicted’ to flow according to scientific principles. Your TV, iPad, car, SatNav… not to mention more esoteric things like the Sandia Labs ZMachine… all of it works according to the predictions of these existing rules.
Now we take a step back, and talk ID. If we are to believe that the human understanding of chemistry and physics are valid (all observable data clearly support this) then at what point does the ID proponent decide that ‘science’ no longer applies?
Is there a specific thing in the ID canon that says “at this point, chemistry and physics no longer apply, and if the isotopic decay rate (or any other method, from dendrochronology or palynology to geology) says the world is 4+ billion years old… it is wrong. Even of all other predictions based on this understanding of the universe bear out, we do not ‘believe’ it”.
I do not understand, but would like to get some clarification on that. Just seems rather… odd. Either I am missing something, or ID is really really out there. Strange that I have never bothered to inquire before… but better late than never.
bornagain77 @ 1:
Thanks for this comment. Although I chose not to comment on it in the blog, there is an interesting paragraph in the essay – towards the end. Here it is:
“The theory of evolution discards finality from the realm of the living world. In the absence of a transcendental answer or dogma, human beings, who can elaborate complex representations and act intentionally (the word “conscience” could find its place here) are responsible for their future and are left with the difficult task of finding out what they should do with their own life. Fortunately, nobody faces a blank slate. Every human civilization has grappled with the question of “self-made destiny”. The recurring solution is generally close to The Golden Rule of Moral Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule, consulted 9.10.2010), embodied in the sentence: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (The Bible, Matthew, 7:12). There are plenty of variations on the theme but the fundamental idea has remained the same for a few thousand years. It is a good start for constructing one’s own moral and political posture in life.”
It appears to me that within the Darwinian worldview this “Golden Rule” has no more significance than “Everyone for themselves” or “Survival of the fittest”. Numerous people have chosen to operate in a Darwinian mode – and these are the neighbours we might want to avoid! There is no rationale for Darwinists to say such people are wrong. They have a real problem with the concept of “evil” – they know that there are evil things, but their worldview cannot get beyond prioritising it and saying “that’s your choice”.
The author could have pointed out that within his worldview, no moral judgments are allowed, so no one can really say Hitler or Stalin behaved in an “evil” way. However, this is never allowed to be part of the public face of Darwinism. I am sure we can think of reasons why.
Eric Anderson: “Materialists take great pride in the idea that they alone have an understanding of reality and realize the absolute pointlessness of life, the universe and everything.”
Wrong, for the record. I am clearly one of the people you are talking about… but the conclusion is NOT that life is “pointless”, it is that we must self-define our own point. There is no external influence giving empty meaning to things.
See the difference?
as to:
I’ve often asked atheists to prove that ‘materialism’, which under-girds their worldview, is true, for I can present solid evidence that it is false:
The following articles show that even atoms are subject to teleportation:
It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as ‘infinite information’ in its uncollapsed quantum wave state:
More supporting evidence for how information interacts with energy is found in these following studies:
Continued: This following experiment clearly shows ‘classical’ information is not an ’emergent property’ of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists, but is in fact a subset of quantum information:
Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is ‘information’.
music:
“that we must self-define our own point.”
Your defining a *subjective* point. Assigning your own purpose to the specific arrangement of matter that is you. That is a subjective purpose to life. You may say that your purpose is to paint. Or to race cars. To fix cars. Or to methodically stalk and kill people. But these are subjective assignments. Under the umbrella of materialism, there is no *objective* purpose for life. And under the umbrella of materialism, there is no way to determine if fixing cars is more or less valid then stalking and killing humans.
Therefore the killers assignment of purpose is no less valid than the car mechanics assignment of purpose.
Majority accept a 13.4 by old universe, and a 4.5 by old earth. I think you have propagandized understanding of ID.
It is generally the understanding of these disciplines that lead many to question the plausibility of the proposed mechanical OOL scenarios.
BeerBaron you mentioned:
It might interest you to know that all the names behind those laws were people who were avid Christians. In fact the vast majority, if not all, of the founders of modern science were avid Christians, as opposed to just nominal Christians. Why should this be??? It turns out that it is the Judeo-Christian worldview which provides the necessary philosophical foundation in which to presuppose that the universe is governed by rational ‘transcendent’ laws that have been imposed on it by the rational transcendent mind of God, and that we, being made in God’s image have it within ourselves the ability to grasp and understand these laws. No other philosophy provides this basis!
In fact atheism/materialism can be forcefully argued to be ANTI-science!
This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs within a materialistic worldview;
but the conclusion is NOT that life is “pointless”, it is that we must self-define our own point.
If one understands the meaning of eternal life, one sees that any other so-called point is pointless indeed.
Please, stop projecting strawman caricatures.
You may find it significant to note that the understanding that phenomena tend to trace to causes rooted in mechanical necessity and/or chance and/or Art, goes back to at least Cicero and Plato.
What Design theory has done is to formalise the process of inference through the so-called design filter which infers these three major causal factors as best explanation per empirically tested reliable signs.
Necessity — explanation by law — comes first; and is marked by low contingency [high consistency] of outcomes under similar initial conditions. Where there is high contingency, the source traces to chance or choice, and we can discern these on their signs, e.g. no-one here has a problem distinguishing the posts in this thread from random typing: fyhi2jgjuhg034rbv. The latter is the overwhelmingly likely outcome of a chance based process, once we have a big enough degree of complexity that the atomic resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos would be fruitlessly exhausted, i.e 500 – 1,000 bits. This, as the space of possible configurations will be overwhelmingly dominated by nonsensical and/or non-functional, non-specific patterns. (The fraction of ASCII text strings of post length that would make a coherent message that responds to context, is astonishingly small relative to the field of possible configs.)
That is, functionally specific, complex organisation and related information are strong signs of design.
In short, as you exemplify, the design inference perspective will help to clarify what is happening in an empirical investigation or a phenomenon or object. Design thought is not simply a manifestation of the Dawkins “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked” slanderous talking point.
(Try reading here as a start, and here on the explanatory filter and the scientific method.)
GEM of TKI
CMBB:
As a footnote, you may wish to read here on, on the usually unacknowledged or unrecognised implications of the materialist frame of thought that usually tries to call itself scientific; and here on on soundly building a worldview.
This UD post here may help you balance your view of science and its roots. (Cf here too.)
GEM of TKI
PS: You seem to have picked up much of your idea of what design theory and thought are about from the strawmannish caricatures too often propounded by objectors. I suggest you may find the weak argument correctives here at UD helpful.