Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What happens when we assume there is no design in life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Friends remind me of an excerpt from a debate between intelligent design advocate Phillip Johnson, a constitutional lawyer, and Darwinist philosopher William Provine, in which Provine proclaims,

First, the argument from design failed. There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. (Stanford University, April 30, 1994)

Provine has said this elsewhere over the years, most notably in the Expelled movie.

A friend comments that he admires Provine for at least being honest about where materialist atheism leads – as opposed to Richard Dawkins, who moralizes with abandon, without recognizing that his belief system cannot privilege one morality over another by definition.

What happens then? Well, what happens then is being played out in Canada right now, and all across Europe. All ethical systems come under attack, and degenerate into a swamp of unfocused feelings. In Canada, a quasi-judicial body known as a “human rights commission” – with far more power over individual Canadians’ lives than any court would ever have – is alike empowered to pass judgment on a clergyman’s pastoral advice and a late-night comic’s jokes – based on assorted individuals’ feelings of hurt or offense. One astonishing decision follows another, and you can read about many of them on a regular basis at civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant’s blog.

Straw in the wind: When Levant recently tried debating an establishment lawyer, the establishment lawyer began to claim that Levant “needs counselling” – there are few more ominous words in a rapidly degenerating materialist society. The establishment neither has nor needs arguments for its position; it only needs to flow in whatever direction it is driven by the moods of the moment, and those whose moods (not “ideas”, notice) are out of synch – “need counselling.”

As Mario Beauregard and I put it in the The Spiritual Brain, the root of this sort of abuse is materialist atheism, in which

“science-based, effective and progressive policies” are not offered by a self to other selves, but driven by an object at other objects.” (p. 117)

That, I think, is what breeds the totalitarian impulse. The materialist has first dehumanized himself, then he dehumanizes others.

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack

Neuroscience: News flash, sort of … people would rather give to charity than pay taxes. Who’d ever have guessed?

Neuroscience: When did you really decide to adopt that puppy?

Fun! G. K. Chesterton on the difference between humans and apes

Mathematician David Berlinski on why we should not pay any attention to “evolutionary psychology”

Evolutionary psychology: Women prefer men with stubble? Oh, no wait – beards – but we can explain that too …

Brain: If a pill did not cause all your problems, chances are a pill won’t fix them all either

Comments
Avonwatches Baptism is believed to be a requirement for salvation in some Christian denominations. The wiki link I gave has at least a partial list of which do and which do not. If you can find the logical proofs or material evidence for which it is, baptism not required to get into heaven or baptism required to get into heaven, I'd really appreciate it. This seems a rather important thing to get right if you happen not to have been baptized. Appolos Since you got the baptism thing wrong why should I trust you about anything? But I'll pose a question for you anyhow. Once saved, always saved? If a person once had faith, and was saved, but subsequently loses faith, are they still saved? Please provide logical proofs and material evidence to back your answer because the faith based answers will be different depending on who you ask. I need objective answers. Thanks in advance. DaveScot
July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
In regards to Noah's Flood, many scholars today see it as a being a local event. So even if that is so, was there still an Ark with lots of animals?PannenbergOmega
July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
faith to me is like a jigsaw puzzle.... then you suddenly see the picture.mad doc
July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
Apollos is correct. People are saved by faith in Christ. No conditions. Baptism is not a requirement, but an act/ritual to signify your belief and acceptance of Christ into your life. ========== On Topic: How long has this 'situation' in Canada been going on? Or has it just gotten worse recently? When touring through BC, I was amazed at the country and people. Don't shatter the flawless mirror!Avonwatches
July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Dave, baptism is not scripturally required for salvation -- however belief is (cf. Romans 10:9, 1 John 3:23-24). Since belief is your issue with accepting the testimony, I wouldn't worry so much about baptism. It's putting the cart before the horse. You won't hear many protestants insisting that baptism necessarily precedes salvation. When you decide to accept that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he died on the cross and then rose from the dead(for your sake) it might be appropriate at that time to determine if one should be baptized (cf. Luke 23:42-43, Acts 2:38).Apollos
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Atom (and Dave and StephenB et al): Excellent, telling point in 12:
Faith is trust in a historically trustworthy source. The degree of history and the degree of trustworthiness are directly proportional to your degree of rational faith . . . . It is actually closer to induction, where we use past results as the faith basis of our beliefs concerning the future or unseen cases. (i.e. the substance of things hoped for [future states], and the evidence of things not seen [unobserved cases])
Indeed, good enough to pull me back out overnight! (I never thought of putting it quite that way before A, but on reading your comment several things just clicked together . . . let us explore together for a few moments.) Now, it is wise to look just a little at the context of Heb 11:1, down to v 6, since it has been cited and alluded to in the above. So, let's see the evidence:
Heb 11: 1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for. 3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. 5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Now, the analogy of scientific, confident induction, and of putting faith in a known to be reliable friend lead to some interesting points on the above:
a --> When one has provisionally tested and found a principle or person to be trustworthy, it is rational to accept it or him or her on cases not yet or otherwise known. b --> Indeed, this is a form of the basic principle of testing and trusting (but verifying where possible) reliable witnesses and evidentiary methods as is used in courts. (Cf founding father of modern jurisprudence on evidence, Simon Greenleaf's principles here.) c --> The very first of these rules is quite interesting: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. [Testimony, p.16.] d --> Similarly: If [a report] were "the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned" it would . . . be legally admissible . . . To entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not necessary that they be obtained under a legal commission; it is sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. [p. 25.] e --> And: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is a sufficient probability that it is true. [p. 28.] f --> Note as well, the restricted sense of "proof": A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 - 9.] g --> So, we see that the issue is to establish that on the face of it a witness or source is credible, and to trust such sources at least provisionally, with the burden of disproof resting on the objector, once credibility tests have been passed. h --> This bears more than a passing resemblance to both scientific work and to faith in the biblical sense. i --> In the latter case, we Jews and Christians are part of a tradition that stretches across millenia and millions of lives, with a great many people who have known and encountered God based on the inscripturated tradition. Indeed, there are millions alive today who testify to such from personal experience, experience that has often utterly trasnformed lives beyond what psychologiests or sociologists etc can account for. j --> So, it is rational for us to trust the tradition and its core writings, even in the teeth of cavils [as opposed to actual burden-of-proof meeting, well-founded objections]. k --> We may, with justification, call such: "reasonable faith." (And notice how friendly this approach is to justice, good philosophy and science . . .) l --> In that light, the text above speaks of how we accept by trust that God is Creator, so that the empirically observable [the visible] comes from what is ultimately not [the invisible]. (That sounds eerily familiar as one reflects on the fine-tuned intricacies of cosmological physics, and as one reflects on the similarly fine-tuned complexities of bio-information.) m --> It cites several exemplary cases of faith under trial [the following chapter is a litany of the heroes of the faith and their life stories]. In short, there is a tradition, and there are cases where the source shows itself trustworthy, so we have a right to confident trust and expectation on cases where we do not have such further confirmation. m --> The passage then concludes that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." In light of the context, such confident faith is rational.
In the light of the above, I find TW6 at 17 tellingly off the mark:
The presented implications of evolution offend my sensibilities. Therefore evolution must be false.
No, TW: From Provine in OP, we note: "No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly." But, by sharpest contrast:
. . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity . . . . In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . .
And, if mind has been undermined, then a fortiori morals [a key function of mind] are undermined -- as Provine acknowledges. With not only potentially but across the past 100 years, actually devastating consequences -- as over 100 million ghosts remind us. In short, the objection is not merely an appeal to offended sensibilities [emotions] but to logic of reduction to absurdity. That is, evolutionary materialism here has rto answwer to serious evidence and reason that points to its logical incoherence. For 150 years, despite having captured the intellectual high ground of key sectors of our scientific culture, it has repeatedly failed to do so. So, we have good reason to be suspicious of -- rather than confident in -- it. And, as the always linked will summarise at 101 level, we have excellent reason to infer that the structure of life and of the observed cosmos that facilitates it show evidence of being formed by an intentional, thinking, choosing intelligent agent. Reductio ad absurdum cannot be dismissed so lightly! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
wingless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism Baptism has traditionally been seen as necessary for salvation. Martyrdom was identified early in church history as baptism by blood, allowing martyrs who had not been baptized by water to be saved.DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
I don't believe you need "you need water splashed on your head by a priest before you can gain admittance to heaven". If I recall right a thief crucified with Jesus went to heaven. I don't think he had any water splashed over his head at that point or before that. (although that's an assumption)WinglesS
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
StephenB re; leap of faith Excellent. This common phrase is meaningless unless faith is defined as belief in things not seen. Darwinism is so filled with leaps of faith it's become a religion, not a science. Faith that all things have a material explanation is a religious belief. Science, like Elvis, has left the building at that point. DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Arc was a simple typo. I meant the boat. Interesting connection with the rainbow in the same story though but I don't think there was anything Freudian in the slip (and by slip I mean mistake not a place where a boat is kept). Faith defined as belief in things not seen is still a common, oft used definition of the word that was not at all cockamamie in a religious context.DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Noah's arc? I love it! Dave, you are confusing the rainbow after the waters subsided (= arc) with the boat (= Ark). (Cf. Gen 9:12-17) For what it is worth, most people come to faith through evidence from their personal experience. The more dramatic and counter-expectations the experience, the less likely they are to make stories of unusual occurrences recorded in the Bible an occasion of doubt.O'Leary
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Dave, Biblical faith is not "belief without evidence", as the materialists say, but "Trust in God's promisses". We trust in what God says because it is HE who says it.Mats
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
-----Dave: "Clear instances of faith would be belief in Noah’s arc and the global flood, Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, Moses parting the red sea, that you need water splashed on your head by a priest before you can gain admittance to heaven, and things of that nature." I think that this is a fair point and I agree that these are good examples. Indeed, I will go one step further and acknowledge that it requires a bit of a leap. The critical point is, though, that the rational justification precedes the leap. You don't get that with other religions.StephenB
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
It seems like this moral argument against evolution boils down to: The presented implications of evolution offend my sensibilities. Therefore evolution must be false. This doesn't seem like a very strong argument.timothy_wood6
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Clear instances of faith: trusting that G-d will provide for your family, since he has done so in the past even in the harshest of times; believing that G-d can heal you, since you've seen family members healed in the past; trusting that the Bible is G-d's reveled word, since all of your personal investigations into the evidence have turned out to confirm its message (cf. the case of Lee Strobel.) As Stephen B said, faith can be mindless or rational. Most Christians I know (even uneducated ones) have a rational, induction-like faith. G-d has shown himself trustworthy to them personally, so they trust him personally.Atom
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Clear instances of faith would be belief in Noah's arc and the global flood, Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt, Moses parting the red sea, that you need water splashed on your head by a priest before you can gain admittance to heaven, and things of that nature.DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Biblical Faith: Confidence in the character and nature of God as revealed through His interaction in history (time and space) and His Word--tested by time and emperical, systematic dissection. Worldy Faith: Crossing one's fingers and muttering "Gee, I sure wish it were true, but whatever will be, will be..."Graceout
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
I wouldn’t normally broach this issue, but since it was brought up, I will make the relevant point. Scriptural faith is actually defined in two ways, first as the assent of the intellect to a revealed truth and second, as a total life commitment to that same principle. The broader point is, though, that faith can be either mindless or rational, depending on circumstances. Most religions ask their believers to simply accept the propositions without any evidence. Such is not the case for Christianity. It is always characterized as something to be supported by rational investigation. Hence, passages in Psalm 19 and St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, both of which point to evidence for design, are put there to provide rational motives for believing. Similarly, numerous Old Testament prophecies become fulfilled in the New Testament including, among other things, Jesus’ birthplace, the dynamics of his ministry, his recorded miracles, and the conditions surrounding his execution. Inquiring minds are supposed to notice that 459 fulfilled prophecies, all of which converge in time, space, history, constitute statistically independent events that are extremely likely to have occurred by chance. So, it is not the typical case of someone just showing up and saying, “trust me.”StephenB
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
What is that evidence? What is that substance? (In other words, if we know that faith is the substance of things hoped for, what is this faith substance itself?) Faith is trust in a historically trustworthy source. The degree of history and the degree of trustworthiness are directly proportional to your degree of rational faith. That is the Biblical understanding of the "faith substance". DS, you seem to adopt an atheist understanding of faith as "substanceless." It is actually closer to induction, where we use past results as the faith basis of our beliefs concerning the future or unseen cases. (i.e. the substance of things hoped for [future states], and the evidence of things not seen [unobserved cases])Atom
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
PS: Dave, every worldview at length embeds first plausibles that constitute an unproven faith point; indeed, post Godel, Mathematics is in a similar position, much less science. But, that does not mean that such faith is inevitably irrational -- we have the duty of comparative difficulties, in light of experience, factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance towards reasonable faith, and that is Denyse's underlying context: e.g. what of those of us who know God in a personal relationship? [Do we believe without evidence, and without foundation or reasonableness?] Back to lurking . . .kairosfocus
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Just for fun: H'mm: Let's take a look at this UD thread from last summer, from 46 on. Compare the exchanges there with Provine's remarks above. Then, I invite our materialist friends to tell us how we can ground liberty and justice for all, save on the foundation that we know -- or, should know -- worked historically:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], 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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . ., Happy 232nd b'day, America!]
Back that up with Locke's citation from Richard Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, as he began to ground the principles of liberty:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men [i.e. the Golden Rule; cf. Matt 7:12 etc] . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. [2nd Essay on Civil Government, ch 2 section 5; citing Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, 1594 -.]
Then, after comparing what is now going on in Canada, let us invite our materialist friends to explain to us again just why we "should" move to an evolutionary materialist foundation for our worldviews, science, education and ethics. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Denyse Definition of the word "faith" in the American Heritage Dictionary .2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Bible definition of faith (KJV): Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Dictionary and bible seem to pretty much agree on it. DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Denyse wrote: "That, I think, is what breeds the totalitarian impulse. The materialist has first dehumanized himself, then he dehumanizes others." I agree. C. S. Lewis made the point well in That Hideous Strength.Alan Rhoda
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Without the principles of Christianity and a strong voice for God in public life, there can be no freedom. To deny the holy spirit in order to legitimize loose women and predatory economics is a sign of the times. We can still set an example though. Honesty and integrity always prevail in the long haul. This kind of thing makes my blood boil.Second_Ammendment
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Mats, the theo evos say that we know by sheer faith without evidence that what Provine says is not true. It took me years to figure out why New Scientist used the cockamamie defnition of "faith", "belief without evidence" Every Christian or Jew that I knew believed on the basis of evidence. But that was before I started researching By Design or by Chance? - and ran smack dab into "theistic" evolution. Those people DO believe without evidence. They believe that the evidence does not support design in the universe. And if it doesn't support even that, what the heck could it possibly support that would be of interest to a deist, let alone a theist? So, armed with faith in faith alone, they team up with atheists to attack the ID theorists and then act hurt when anyone makes clear that their faith is on a par with Julie Andrews' "confidence in confidence alone". Darwinism cannot turn mud into mind but it can turn churches into condos. - d.O'Leary
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
I wonder how theo evos refute Provine.Mats
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.
The super-rich elites of the world need this type of thinking in order to justify their big-swallowing-up-the-small behavior and total disregard for human dignity.JPCollado
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
For those interested in speaking up about the Canadian HRC fascists write to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper : pm@pm.gc.ca I wrote and received a prompt response from the executive communications officer who told me my mail was being forwarded to the Chief Justice. You can contact premier of Alberta Ed Stelmach (where the pastor thing is going down) here : premier@gov.ab.ca Note that when addressing political dignitaries one must tone down ones language and anger into polite terms of outrage ;-) or your email will get trashed right off. It wasn't easy for me to tone down my own words below a certain level of outrage at these travesties perpetrated against Canadian citizens. And it doesn't really matter that you're not Canadian yourself. A little input from our good neighbors to the south (or where ever) might do some good.Borne
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
This guy in the video is a jackass, but at least he's an honest jackass. His summary of what evolutionary biology means is spot on.jinxmchue
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. But the DNA is still there. Seems it's just a little engineering issue to start it up again, right Provine? Any good mechanic should be able to do it. That's all life is, right? DNA. And it happens naturally via random events and chemical necessity, right?tribune7
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply