Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2010

theistic evolution}

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

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments

@Bornagain77 (#82) Are you claiming that quantum entanglement is supernatural, and researchers have harnessed God's omnipotent power to instantly transport the state of a photon, at will, in a lab? In other words, we can make God perform tricks for us on demand? Really?veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "So apparently there is no such thing as self-propulsion. I guess that’s not a terribly surprising claim, considering that it comes from someone who seems to believe that temperature cannot increase in an isolated system:" Strictly speaking, nothing is self propelled because the ultimate source of the energy must be explained. However, that fact would obviously be lost on someone who thinks that something can come from nothing.StephenB_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

cont.,,,,,,,, Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the double slit experiment. The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914 The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension (Wheeler; Zeilinger) does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Artwork homepage - http://www.artakiane.com/ - Music video - http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586 As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx etc..etc.. further notes here: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

The above comment was a response to a comment on another thread. Feel free to delete both this comment and the comment in question.veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

cont...,,,,,,,, More supporting evidence for the transcendent nature of information, and how it interacts with energy, is found in these following studies: Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html This following experiment clearly shows information is not an "emergent property" of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists: Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm It is also interesting to note that a Compact Disc crammed with information on it weighs exactly the same as a CD with no information on it whatsoever. Information – Elusive but Tangible – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WytNkw1xOIc Information? What Is It Really? Professor Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4739025 Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its “infinite” information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon “disappeared” from the universe when the entire information content of a photon was “transcendently displaced” from the material universe, in the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence of space-time matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can explain where all energy came from as far as the Big Bang is concerned. That is it is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science. (as a side note: transcendent information is the primary entity from which all reality presently comes from as far as the wave function collapse of Quantum Mechanics is concerned.) Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). As well, the fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus “infinite transcendent information” provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify gravity with the other forces. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. The following article backs up this assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, are concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework of time. This higher dimension "eternal" inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/best-brainac/article37176-2.html "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182bornagain77_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, when you stated this,,,: "Of course, I won’t be holding my breath as I do not expect an explanation to be forth coming." ,,, in response to you expecting any explanation from me on how Quantum Teleportation relates to God you probably made quite a few of the regulars on UD laugh for I have probably bored more people with that particular topic, by repeating it repeatedly. But just for you I will go through it one more time. As well, "pure transcendent information" is now shown to be "conserved". (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical events, past, present, and future, already must exist. This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of energy which cannot be created or destroyed by any "material" means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics) Conservation Of Transcendent Information - 2007 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995275 These following studies verified what I had suspected in the preceding video: How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 Of note: conclusive evidence for the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is firmly found in the preceding experiment when coupled with the complete displacement of the infinite transcendent information of "Photon c": http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzBmcjR0eG1neg In extension to the 2007 video, the following video and article shows quantum teleportation breakthroughs have actually shed a little light on exactly what, or more precisely on exactly Whom, has created this universe: Scientific Evidence For God (Logos) Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995300 Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf It is also interesting to note that we can only “destroy” a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has “created” a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge. ,,,,,bornagain77_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
First, the designer cannot be matter in motion, because anything that is moved must be moved by something else.
So apparently there is no such thing as self-propulsion. I guess that's not a terribly surprising claim, considering that it comes from someone who seems to believe that temperature cannot increase in an isolated system:
Imagine a pan full of water changing from cold to hot. The cause of that change must come from the outside, either from the flame on the range top or from some other source of heat. The pan of water cannot warm itself. The change most certainly cannot come from the inside of the pan.
R0b_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

@gpuccio (#45) You wrote:
The ID point is that such events are rare functional examples among a huge majority of non functional possible events. The ID point is that, exactly as obtaining a new functional protein is empirically impossible through RV and NS alone, in the same way obtaining a finely tuned duplication, or set of duplications, and the coordinated mutations both in the coding and non coding sequence and in the related regulatory sequences, which perfectly integrates in a complex regulatory system involving many different agents, is empirically impossible through RV and NS alone.
Gpuccio, How is this not a convoluted elaboration of TOE? The complexity of biological life is just like neo-darwinsts suggest in that the arrival of harmful traits are unplanned errors on the part of nature, while the appearance of useful traits - including those that only appeared to be neutral or detrimental, but add up to an advantage when put together - are really the work of an intelligent being. In other words, it's just like evolution, except an intelligent designer must have occasionally stepped in because useful traits represent information and we currently define information as resulting from an intelligent agent, or you simply can't imagine a way these traits formed naturally (personal incredulity.) Again, your'e drawing what appears to be an arbitrary boundary. We can understand how harmful traits appear, but no amount of problem solving or reasoning can explain how positive traits can appear. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have done it.veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

@Clive Hayden (#75)
I wasn’t joking whatsoever.
So I'll assume ignorance, a disingenuous misrepresentation or some combination of the two, as you failed to address how any of the "details" I illustrated really do matter.veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 (#76) You wrote:
Well veilsofmaya there is actually quite a lot to gleen from teleportation and E=MC2, none of which is friendly to the materialistic framework.
Born, Again, if quantum teleportation is not part of nature, then is it supernatural? Have we tapped into God's omnipotent power which we can invoke on demand in the lab? Or perhaps these researchers are practicing the modern day equivalent of a Satanic ritual by enlisting demons to instantly teleport the state of one photon to another? If not then, by all means, please enlighten us and explain exactly what else is it? Of course, I won't be holding my breath as I do not expect an explanation to be forth coming.veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

@StephanB (#72) you wrote:
By boundaries, I assume that you mean what Gould referred to as “non-overlapping-magisteria.”
While I can see how you might have reached this conclusion, what I'm referring to can be found here , which is somewhat of a continuation of here… To quote from the comment.
In case it’s not clear, I’m suggesting that we can rightfully say ID’s implied theory is a convoluted elaboration of and a response to TOE. Furthermore, it shares the following with The Inquisition’s implied theory and even Solipsism: it draws an arbitrary boundary beyond which human reason and understanding has no access and problem solving can no longer increase knowledge. For Solipsists, this boundary is drawn at their brain/mind. For The Inquisition it was drawn around the earth. And for ID it’s drawn at the development of biological complexity we observe. We we simply cannot understand why the designer intentionally made things appear to have evolved, and we never will. Who are we do say how or why God, oops … I mean the intelligent designer did it?
For example, In ( #74) You wrote:
On the other hand, philosophy, if it is based on sound reasoning, recognizes that the idea of a material designer is totally illogical. Insofar as they are familiar with philosophy and sound reasoning, therefore, most ID scientists undoubtedly recognize that fact.
Is the boundary drawn by philosophical Solipsism based on sound reasoning? After all, if consciousness can only be a first person experience, it would be impossible for you to know for sure that an external realty actually exits or that you really having a discussion with a separate conscious entity. Why not draw the boundary at our brain/minds as Solipsism suggests? We are realists because when we take Solipsism seriously it does not explain reality. Instead, Solipsism suggests there are dream-like aspects of myself that act like autonomous conscious beings which surprise me, have different personalities and even disagree with me on Solipsism! And there object-like facets of myself that obey laws of physics like facets even though, as a non-physicist, I can't do the math that describes their behavior. Not to mention that these supposed people-like facets of myself discover new things about myself (physics like facets) all the time, which I wasn't aware of previously. In other words, Solipsism consists of the theory of realty with the added exception of it all being elaborate figments of my internal self. As such, It's a bad explanation which we can discard. It does not actually explain reality, it attempts to explain way the currently tenable theory. Another example? Surely, it might be the case that the earth is surrounded by a giant planetarium, of which the boundary represents the limit of existence. This planetarium could faithfully returns light and radio waves so that merely appereas that we exist in a massive universe. It may return spaceships with manufactured telemetry, research and even remove fuel so it only appears they traveled vast distances. It may return astronauts with elaborate implanted memories of their journeys. Surely, from a philosophical position, it would be impossible to prove this were not the case either, so why not draw the line there? Again, we do not assume this is the case because it's a bad explanation. It does not explain the universe, it only attempts to explain it away by drawing it's own specific boundary at which human reason and understanding has no access and problem solving can no longer increase knowledge.
Indeed, Christianity stands on the notion that truth is unified, meaning that anything we discover through empirical investigation will never conflict with anything God teaches in Scripture–and vice versa So, where does Olasky and Collins stand with respect to the unity of truth principle. Clearly, Collins does not believe it because he feels the need to subordinate his religion to his speculative science.
Please see comment 6, as these claims have already been made by Luther and Calvin, among others. And how have discoveries such as these been resolved in the past? Assume that scripture that was once literal is actually metaphorical or the the result of finite beings trying to understand the message of an infinite God. After all, the Bible is not a science book, right? From a historical perspective, this is non-controversial, yet Olasky's argument seems to imply it has never happened before, so why start now?
On the hand, Scripture clearly rules out Darwinistic evolution without qualification even as it also makes macro evolution seem highly unlikely, though not totally impossible.
You mean the specific interpretation of scripture Olasky holds, which has changed significantly over the centuries?
Further, he does embrace the self-contradictory notion that a purposeful God could create by using a purposeless evolution. That is clearly an illogical proposition. So, Olasky is right about that.
StephanB, What is the purpose of our universe? if we assume the depiction of Satan is accurate in the Bible, then having physical form does not appear necessary to accept or reject God as he was supposedly God's right hand angel who had direct knowledge that God exited. Yet he eventually rejected him anyway. So, why do we exist in a physical universe? Do you think God fine tuned the universe? If so, what specifically wast it tuned for? Most theists suggest it was tuned support life as we know it, including human beings, which are supposedly Gods' special creation. Should it be possible to vary these parameters significantly, life as we know it could not exist. is this not the classical theist argument? In other words, if the universe is finely tuned and has a purpose, but this purpose is not to facilitate choosing or rejecting God or creating life as we know it, then please explain what purpose does the universe serve?veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

veilofmaya you state: "Furthermore, given the discoveries such as E=MC2 and and quantum teleportation, which we can repeatedly observe repeatedly in the lab, the definition of ‘material’ is changing rapidly and subject to much debate. Is single kind of material or multiple kinds?" Well veilsofmaya there is actually quite a lot to gleen from teleportation and E=MC2, none of which is friendly to the materialistic framework. that you would state the definition of "material" is changing rapidly is very funny for there is found to be no "material" foundation to reality as was first postulated by materialism thousands of years ago. In fact Reality, at its most basement level, reduces to transcendent information, which is exactly what John 1:1 has held for 2 thousand years.bornagain77_{June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya,
Clive, I’m giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming what you actually described was satirical, rather than ignorance or a disingenuous misrepresentation. If not, please see the clarifications I’ve already provided.
I wasn't joking whatsoever. Common Descent claims that everything that lives came from a single cell, quite literally. What's to be satirical about? This is your theory, not mine, I am sure you would know this as a critical rationalist materialist evolutionist. Regardless of whether the conditions still exist here on Earth for macroeveolution of molecule to man, (we don't know what they were to begin with, and may never know, given that abiogenesis is still a complete mystery for materialism), this is what materialists and evolutionists claim happened; everything alive came from one cell, which came from some self-replicating molecule, which came from rocks, which came from space dust, which came from the singularity, which came from nothing. Does this strike you as funny? It does me, but I'm certainly not being satirical.Clive Hayden_{June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

---“No, materialism suggests there is only one kind of substance. It says nothing specific about how life might have arisen naturally from that substance. This is the domain of biogenesis. If ID really has nothing to say about the designer, such as being supernatural or non-material, it would seem that ID could fit in a materialistic framework as well.” As a scientific enterprise, ID does not, in principle, rule out a material designer. What it contests is “scientific materialism,” and its tool of enforcement, methodological naturalism, which forbids the study of intelligent causes, either material or non-material. ID Science makes no claims about either monism or dualism. That is why even an atheist such as Bradley Monton can accept the principle of intelligent design. On the other hand, philosophy, if it is based on sound reasoning, recognizes that the idea of a material designer is totally illogical. Insofar as they are familiar with philosophy and sound reasoning, therefore, most ID scientists undoubtedly recognize that fact. First, the designer cannot be matter in motion, because anything that is moved must be moved by something else. Because that process cannot go on into infinity, a first mover is required. Further, the first mover must be Self existent. If it depended on anything else for its existence, then obviously it would not be the first mover. That also means that the first mover must be unchanging, because if it was changing, a prior cause would have to be changing it. Further, since the first cause if unchangeable, it must also be immaterial. If it was material, it would also be changeable. Further, since the first cause is self existent, immaterial, and unchanging, it must be the source of everything else. If the first mover is the source of everything else, it must possess and intellect and a will, and must therefore, be a person. Thus, two realms must exist, the material and the non-material. To sum up: While ID science is obliged to accommodate the possibility of a materialistic designer, sound philosophy recognizes that such a proposition is totally ridiculous.StephenB_{June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

@Clive Hayden (#17) You wrote:
But materialism does.
No, materialism suggests there is only one kind of substance. It says nothing specific about how life might have arisen naturally from that substance. This is the domain of biogenesis. If ID really has nothing to say about the designer, such as being supernatural or non-material, it would seem that ID could fit in a materialistic framework as well. As such, it seems what you're really arguing for here is a form of spiritualism, which is based on dualism. Furthermore, given the discoveries such as E=MC2 and and quantum teleportation, which we can repeatedly observe repeatedly in the lab, the definition of 'material' is changing rapidly and subject to much debate. Is single kind of material or multiple kinds? Or perhaps quantum teleportation is proof that God does exist, as we've discovered how part of his supernatural abilities work and can harness them on demand? You wrote:
Doesn’t much matter if it’s on my porch or at the bottom of the sea when you understand what is really involved, which I’m sure you must as a critical rationalist.
and
No? Isn’t that Common Descent?
Clive, I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming what you actually described was satirical, rather than ignorance or a disingenuous misrepresentation. If not, please see the clarifications I've already provided. For example, the conditions over the 4.55 billion years that created human beings no longer exists here on earth. The only way the these conditions could repeat themselves is if, given an infinite universe that does not die in a big freeze or a big crunch, such conditions would eventually appear again in close enough proximation. (Or perhaps God recreated them using his omnipotence?) However, TOE does not claim the universe is infinite. Nor does materialism claim the universe will not die in a big freeze or a big rip. As such, …"when you understand what is really involved"…, it really does matter.veilsofmaya_{June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

---veilsofmaya: "So why accept Olasky’s boundary rather than Collins’ boundary? Better yet, why assume a boundary at all?" That's not a bad question, if I understand what you mean about "boundaries." So, we might be able to do business on this one. Since Olasky doesn't use the term, and since you don't define it, I'll have to guess again about what you mean. By boundaries, I assume that you mean what Gould referred to as "non-overlapping-magisteria." If that is what you mean, then I agree with you. If fact, Olasky seems to confuse macro-evolution, which refers to the amount of evolution that occurred, with Darwinism, which presumes to have discovered the mechanism that drives it. In fact, macro evolution can be understood to be either purposeful or purposeless, a point that seems to escape Olasky. Thus, there would no empirical boundaries between what science can teach us and what God revealed in nature. Indeed, Christianity stands on the notion that truth is unified, meaning that anything we discover through empirical investigation will never conflict with anything God teaches in Scripture--and vice versa. So, where does Olasky and Collins stand with respect to the unity of truth principle. Clearly, Collins does not believe it because he feels the need to subordinate his religion to his speculative science. Hence, his denial of an individual Adam and Eve. Further, he does embrace the self-contradictory notion that a purposeful God could create by using a purposeless evolution. That is clearly an illogical proposition. So, Olasky is right about that. On the other hand, Olasky seems to assume that all evolution must be purposeless, and he seems to ground that understanding on a literalist [not literal, which means grasping excatly what the author's meant (human and Divine)]understanding of Scipture. In fact, Scripture does not rule out macro-evolution, insisting only that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, with no limitations on which process he might have used. On the hand, Scripture clearly rules out Darwinistic evolution without qualification even as it also makes macro evolution seem highly unlikely, though not totally impossible. Still, Olasky is right to attribute randomness to Collins' brand of evolution because Darwin's variations are, indeed, totally random, and totally random variations leave no room for a purposeful evolution. Olasky is right about most things, but he wrong about his implied claim that Scripture rules out macro-evolution. What it rules out is Darwinism. That is what Francis Collins doesn't get. So Olasky is a lot more right than Collins, but he does stumble on one point.StephenB_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

First, it’s ambiguous as to what your implying. While there may be bacteria in mud, Evolution does not address the origin of life.
But materialism does.
Second, using the phrase “the mud on your front porch” is a woefully incomplete as it suggests it will remain in a static environment (your front porch) for the entire duration. Nor does it account for the conditions under which evolution would have historically formed create human beings.
Sure, let's say mud in a river then, or sand in the ocean. Or a rock on a cliff. Doesn't much matter if it's on my porch or at the bottom of the sea when you understand what is really involved, which I'm sure you must as a critical rationalist.
Third, evolution in no way suggests bacteria could evolve into an currently existing species, let alone a specific individual.
No? Isn't that Common Descent? Isn't that the very crux of evolution? A Common Ancestor, of anything that has ever been alive, in the first single-celled organism? You included?Clive Hayden_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya,
You yourself showed that I was not obfuscating needlessly when you wrote…
Define "not" and "you" and "needlessly". Clive Hayden_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

@Clive Hayden (#66)
What you’re claiming is akin to saying that a bit of mud on my front porch could eventually become you with enough time.
First, it's ambiguous as to what your implying. While there may be bacteria in mud, Evolution does not address the origin of life. Second, using the phrase "the mud on your front porch" is a woefully incomplete as it suggests it will remain in a static environment (your front porch) for the entire duration. Nor does it account for the conditions under which evolution would have historically formed create human beings. Third, evolution in no way suggests bacteria could evolve into an currently existing species, let alone a specific individual. Only if our universe is infinite, which is not a claim made by evolution, could such a thing possibly happen. Even then, the Big Freeze or the Big Rip could prevent that from happening.veilsofmaya_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

@StephanB (#62) You wrote:
First, he alludes to the fact that Collins claims to be a Christian while, at the same time, denying the existence of an individual Adam and Eve.
Stephan, It seems you've picked up on the irony in Oaslky's article. Olasky is objecting to what he perceives as Collins drawing an arbitrary boundary where human knowledge and reasoning has no access and were problem solving can no longer increases knowledge. Furthermore, as a strong agnostic, I applaud such criticism. However, the problem is Olasky's objections are also founded on some other arbitrary boundary which happens to be theologically mainstream in our time, but was rejected by theists on theological grounds in the past. It's hypocritical in nature. Essentially, he's claiming the boundary should be drawn here, rather than there, using arguments which I've already shown appear arbitrary in comment 6. The boundary has already moved in ways that contradicted scripture. The boundary has already moved in ways that contradict intuition. The boundary has already been dragged kicking and screaming due to new discoveries in science. So why accept Olasky's boundary rather than Collins' boundary? Better yet, why assume a boundary at all?veilsofmaya_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

@Clive Hayden (#16) Clive, You yourself showed that I was not obfuscating needlessly when you wrote...
Darwin’s idea of gemmules, for starters. But that wasn’t my point, questions about the meaning of “not true” strike me as trolling and intentionally obfuscating needlessly.
@Clive Hayden (#17) I'm referring to comment 35 and comment 51. I guess you should have no problem addressing them either.veilsofmaya_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya,
As a strong agnostic, I do not claim to know with 100% certainty that some kind of God does not exist. However, as a critical rationalist, it seems clear the failure of ID to actually explain what we observe allows us to rightfully say it is a convoluted elaboration of and a response to TOE by theists. This sort of behavior does not inspire confidence in those who continue to present it.
What sort of behavior are you referring to? Surely you're not claiming that David Berlinski, Fred Hoyle (at the time of his epiphany), and Bradley Monton are/were theists? They all defend ID. And ID does indeed explain what we observe exponentially more in biology and cosmology and metaphysics more than mere random happenstance of particle collisions in a blind natural process with absolutely nothing in mind because it lacks a mind at all. Just as Chesterton said, design is a much more reasonable conclusion than such a run of luck as all that. For by your schema, everything was once space dust that bumped about and produced everything physical and tangible that exists anywhere. Surely, as a critical rationalist, you know this is nonsense. Not just a gap in knowledge, but nonsense itself, because it is so unlike anything we observe whatsoever. What you're claiming is akin to saying that a bit of mud on my front porch could eventually become you with enough time. Clive Hayden_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya,
Clive, please see my earlier comment (#9) in which I’ve already illustrated how using the terms “evolution” and “not true” in conjunction could be ambiguous.
That's still nonsense. For example, please define what you mean by "terms" and "evolution". Clive Hayden_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

zeroseven,
Yes, myself (I am a product of generations of learning and cultural development) and the goodwill of those around me.
"Goodwill" begs the questions doesn't it? You take it for granted what is good, not because of the people around you, but because you know yourself first what they are doing is good or not. So, in the beginning and end, you hang morality only on yourself, so do you just make it up as you go along? How do you know what is right or wrong before you see it in others or a community? How do you judge the case? And if morality really changed, as you claim, then we couldn't say that anything in any other age was right or wrong, for unless the moral standard applies to both ages, indeed all ages, we have no standard to condemn slavery or torture. You can't overtake Jones if you are walking in the other direction. So, the obvious truth is that morality doesn't evolve; it may improve, but improvement implies a steady standard that is not changed, for if all were changed, there would be no improvement, no judgment could be made comparing two things to themselves. This seems obvious to me.Clive Hayden_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

---veilsofmaya; "However, as I already noted in my first comment, how did Olasky go about doing this? By making objections that were purely theological in nature." Olasky’s objections are both theological and scientific, with the emphasis on the latter. First, he alludes to the fact that Collins claims to be a Christian while, at the same time, denying the existence of an individual Adam and Eve. Olasky isn’t pointing to the difference between his concept of God and Collins’ concept of God. He is pointing to the fact that Collins finds it necessary to subordinate his faith to his science even as he claims that there is no conflict between the two. On the other hand, Olasky follows with this: “But I’m not so worried about Collins’s theological statements: Many readers can exegete them and come to their own conclusions. “What I and many others need help with is the science.” Thus, his objection is not "purely" theological in nature. Context, context, context. ---"That is, TE is false because it doesn’t fit with Olasky’s concept of God." No, TE is incoherent because it doesn't fit with itself, that is, its science is at war with its proclaimed theology. Indeed, its science is at war with its science. Here is the way Olasky puts it: “Yes, he [Collins] speaks of “pointers to God from nature,” including “the precise tuning of 15 physical constants—if you tweak their values by a tiny fraction, it doesn’t work.” But he takes pains to argue for “theistic evolution” and recently set up the BioLogos Foundation, funded with a Templeton Foundation grant. According to its website, BioLogos “is the belief that Darwinism is a correct science.” Here is a little tip. When the first sentence begins with a “yes,” and the second sentence begins with a “but,” look for a conflict. ---"Also, how do you know what O’leary meant to say?" Because O'Leary knows how to write and I know how to read.StephenB_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

@StephanB (#59) So, I trust you'll have no problem addressing comment 35 and comment 51.veilsofmaya_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

@Stephenb (#59) Stephan, so exactly what was Olasky trying to say? You wrote:
To show the mendacity of the TEs.
However, as I already noted in my first comment, how did Olasky go about doing this? By making objections that were purely theological in nature. That is, TE is false because it doesn't fit with Olasky's concept of God. Also, how do you know what O'leary meant to say? given that her only response to my questions was to correct the pronoun used in my comment, shouldn't O'leary speak for herself?veilsofmaya_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

---veilsofmaya: "Translation of above: When TE’s present a version of God that I don’t agree with, it reduces my ability to coerce non-beleivers into accepting the God I do believe in." You are simply reading your own biases and prejudices into what authors are saying. Neither, Denyse, Olasky, or Gruden said anything like that. Not even close. ---"Stephan, use of the proportions found in Olasky’s article is common when presenting data to support a particular conclusion. ---"Example? ---"[A] Paint an elaborate picture as to how BP was negligent in managing the Deep Horizon drilling operation. ---"[B] Leverage this picture to conclude that BP should be financially responsible for cleaning up the gulf spill and future renewal. ---"It’s reasonable to assume the proportions would be such that [A] would represent a majority of such a document, while [B] would be a minority. --"However, this in no way means that the financial responsibility of BP was not the subject of the document." Is that your roundabout way of saying that a writer can use many words to prepare for the reception of a theme while using few words to articulate it? That is not what is happening here. ---"However, as a critical rationalist, it seems clear the failure of ID to actually explain what we observe allows us to rightfully say it is a convoluted elaboration of and a response to TOE by theists." I trust that you have been reading ID literature with the same perspicacity that you are showing with your analysis of Olasky.StephenB_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

@Stephan B (#56) Stephan, use of the proportions found in Olasky's article is common when presenting data to support a particular conclusion. Example? [A] Paint an elaborate picture as to how BP was negligent in managing the Deep Horizon drilling operation. [B] Leverage this picture to conclude that BP should be financially responsible for cleaning up the gulf spill and future renewal. It's reasonable to assume the proportions would be such that [A] would represent a majority of such a document, while [B] would be a minority. However, this in no way means that the financial responsibility of BP was not the subject of the document. @StephanB (#57) You wrote:
Since TEs passionately promote the naturalistic anti-God argument, while strategically peppering it with a little pro-God rhetoric, it will not take the Darwinists long to figure out that the argument is real and that the rhetoric is a cover.
Again, Darwinists already think the intervention of God was not necessary to explain biological complexity we observe. Otherwise, why would they be Darwinists? So what's left? Translation of above: When TE's present a version of God that I don't agree with, it reduces my ability to coerce non-beleivers into accepting the God I do believe in. As a strong agnostic, I do not claim to know with 100% certainty that some kind of God does not exist. However, as a critical rationalist, it seems clear the failure of ID to actually explain what we observe allows us to rightfully say it is a convoluted elaboration of and a response to TOE by theists. This sort of behavior does not inspire confidence in those who continue to present it. Perhaps some explanation may appear in the future, but, for reasons I've already outlined, this seems highly unlikely as it would undermine the underlying goal of ID.veilsofmaya_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

As a public service to Darwinists, I probably ought to explain the meaning of Grudem's comment, which ends with the words, "it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.” Since TEs passionately promote the naturalistic anti-God argument, while strategically peppering it with a little pro-God rhetoric, it will not take the Darwinists long to figure out that the argument is real and that the rhetoric is a cover.StephenB_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply