Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
It's actually quite useful for people who are going to follow or perhaps even work in science. I cannot imagine not teaching evolution to anyone who intends to understand the world as it is.
When schools teach evolution, they are denying religious freedom to the children of christian families.
You mean creationist families. I don't know how you resolve the freedom issue, but God should not require people to deny reality. For sure, we should not be dumbing down the schools because creationists want to raise misinformed kids. Creationists actually undercut your religious freedom argument by teaching their kids plenty about evolution, but nothing true. Not what it really says or how it really works or what the evidence for it really is. You're really saying that the subject should be omitted from schools, denying all kids an education in that area, so creationists can lie to their kids without contradiction.
But..but...but...Dembski says one can detect design. I designed one of those numbers using a perfectly reproducible algorithm. You should be able to tell it's not random just from the sequence of digits, even if my thinking in designing it is not obvious to you.
(I was going to give digits 1001 through 1021 of pi. Then I realized it would be vulnerable to a google search.)
You forgot catch-22. If two species are obviously different -- where is the intermediate. If they are nearly identical, then they are really the same species.
The reason you are getting such abuse from the crowd is not because your ideas are so cool or that we're so stuck in the mud. The problem is that these threads have been going on for years with many of the same people. You barge in with basically the same arguments that have been posted five thousand times and expect everyone to be impressed.
They're taught that because it's true and has been demonstrated. I recently posted some references on in vitro and in vivo natural selection of antibiotic resistance from single point mutations. Would you like me to repost them?
They're taught that this theory applies to the very first forms of life and to current forms. Nobody on this thread agrees with that.
The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life. After the origin of life, it explains the subsequent development of life.
I've heard of "hopeful monsters," finch-beaks, fish jaws etc... all of which could be strung together to form a much nicer version of evolution than Darwin.
Do it, and become rich and famous.
I have another question. What's the benefit to reproducing at all? You get your genetic material passed along, but what does that get you?
It gets you nothing. The organisms we see now are the result of N cycles of successful selection. You might well ask what good is this to the primordial amoeba (grand)^N-daddy. It's no good at all. He's dead. Evolution is a scientific phenomenon, not a morality play.
More importantly, believing in a Creator does not mean belief in creationism.
There is no "proven science." Evolution is on a sound basis according with known fact and serves a purpose beyond derision, or whatever the heck you said it serves.
It can't be proven that Creationists are lying to their children anymore than evolution can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof is for geometry class. Creationism isn't science. Evolution is.
Good point - they do oppose evil on that front!
I like it. You're a brave fellow. ;)
I've reviewed what you propose for the rules, but this seems to me to be the criteria you plan to use to determine design in some object. Thus, it's not quite what I had in mind for the rules of the game - how you determine design is strictly up to you, with the caveat that the inference is expected to be both defensible and actively defended, as you say it can be.
So, I propose to post ten pictures, of my choosing, of artifacts, objects, or structures. What I would like for each one is for you to first state your verdict - designed or undesigned - and then explain how you inferred that, in as much detail as you like. There's no time limit, and no space restriction - take as much time and space as you need to properly explain each one before moving on to the next. I won't interrupt you or post any commentary until we complete all ten, and at the end, we'll discuss the cases.
Now, by way of a disclaimer, I have no interest in pulling a "fast one" on you - I don't plan to post ten pictures and then say "ha ha, they're all JPEG pictures, designed by humans - you lose". I will try to choose pictures or illustrations such that the object or structure of interest should be obvious, and it is those things to which you can infer design or no design.
However, the claim has been advanced that design can be inferred strictly from the inherent qualities of a thing, without reference to historical or other external information, and I do expect you to hold to that in defending the inferences. That being said, please feel free to investigate the objects pictured further if you so wish, so that you might fully understand the qualities and attributes of the objects in question, although I ask that you note when you have done so. Also, please feel free to solicit advice or assistance from others if you wish - I don't want to debate a committee, though, so I only intend to address information or arguments that you present, even if you have formulated them with help from others. Ask for all the help you like, so long as you're prepared to defend what you post.
The above being stipulated, I would also like to have an EVOLUTIONARY INFERENCE TEST in which I posit pictures of irreducibly complex biological machines and you have to deduce and defend how such a thing could have come about without a designer - and the big rule here is that you have to explain how the irreducibly complex machine was helpful to the creature before it became what it is now. (WHY play your 'game' if you won't play mine?;^)
I accept, but on the condition that we not play simultaneous games. We'll go through mine, and then you can present yours. I will try to defend evolutionary propositions as best I can for examples of structures or organisms or such as you present, according to the same basic rules I have presented for you. Fair enough?
My goal is to show you that your arguments against design are not just unscientific, but at heart an effort to avoid responsibility to the One who designed you.
I understand. Personally, my goal is to show that the design inference fails by its own criteria. Let us see who is more correct ;)
Fine, then we agree there is no supernatural source for consciousness. THAT was my point.
Evan Harris Walker, in his book The Physics of Consciousness, describes consciousness as real, but non-physical -- i.e., as intangible or, in common street parlance, "immaterial."
It wasn't the definition I had a problem with, but you seemed to be saying that since it was 'immaterial' it must have some 'other source' than the natural world. If I have this wrong then we agree.
Well, not me. But then, who’s to say that specifically located individual consciousness is not itself also an “inherent property of the universe?”
Yes, precisely. I see no reason to make the distinction.
In making a choice from among a set of possibilities, we set up a cascade of events that extends well beyond the securing of our intended goal, events that run invisibly away from us, like ripples spreading over the surface of a pond….
What lovely poetry you write.
The dualistic idealism that you seem to attribute to me is not the last word about how I conceive of this issue. I have already confessed to be a “closet monist!” :^)
Whether it is 'dualistic idealism' or not I don't really know or care. Sometimes I think people are too quick to name other people's beliefs, so that once they get that 'handle' on it they now know everything about it, and are then free to ridicule it. Happens to me all the time. I don't really want to go back and drag up the words where you were questioning me about how consciousness could arise in the purely material natural world, but for me 'purely material' begs the question that it is 'purely material' and this was the point I was making. If you agree it isn't necessarily purely material then fine.
"So we at last find that reality is the observer observing. It is the two parts of our great separation coming together. There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. But there is no space and really no matter to die but that our own minds did not first come together to create it. Our observation – our coming together – created matter. Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace."
This was along the lines expressed by Jung when first observing the vast African plain with its writhing mass of wildabeasts, zebras, lions, elephants, giraffes, gazelles and all the rest. He said this was why we existed in the first place, because without an observer none of that would have existed either.
As for the quote itself, it is fine as poetry. First he says,There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. then he says, "Our observation – our coming together – created matter." which is an utter contradiction. If it wasn't 'created' then there wasn't anything to 'come together' and if it was created by observation, then it cannot be separate from the mind.
Then there is, Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace." The first sentence is sheer poetry, meaning it has no discernable meaning, but it sounds pretty, and the second is an unwarranted conclusion derived from nothing. There is no connection between this last and all that went before.
First you say your not saying there is a separation then you give me a quote from a guy who says there is a separation.
Oh, and proper meditation is silent. Maybe that is the problem, you ever stop thinking about the unthinkable?
Like the story of the guy discovering the benzine ring, (I can never remember the details like names anymore - too much stuff) if one fixates on something long enough, one will dream about it. If we are going to start taking dreams of evidence explaining reality . . .
Going back to the thread this came from was more interesting though, and reminds me of why I have all but quit writing.
You say things like,
Like the evolutionist researchers, I'm not fettering this principle of purpose to the exclusivist error of objectivism and logical positivism.
Oh, so you're fettering it to the subjectivist error of undemonstrable inclusivity? You Beg the Question it is an error, you Beg the Question of existence of that which has no demonstrable existence.
So the thread contains statements like,
the public face of Western Science would drop its insistance upon neutrality toward the existence of a Vastly Superior Intelligence, of God, the evidence being so massive, crushing, overwhelming.
Of which, without that error of subjective inclusivity, there would be no evidence at all. To consider it evidence of a Vastly Superior Intelligence, of God one must presuppose the existence of that very being. It is a Smuggled Premise that must exist before it can be considered 'evidence' of a 'Vastly Superior Intelligence.'
If the evidence were so overwhelming, then the issue wouldn't be in dispute. What it is, is a breakdown in logic, in reasoning, that permits the Smuggled Premise, the Begged Question, to be an unexamined premise upon which the conclusion that reality and life 'must be' created by God depends. This breakdown in reasoning you termed, the exclusivist error of objectivism because to remain objective means that you have to admit there is no such evidence.
One thing that I have had pounded into my head here is that logic and reason take a back seat whenever it is a choice between them and belief and faith. In that sense you're right, objectivity will always be considered error ridden. It is an either/choice, because the two will always conflict.
To get down to brass tacks, it is the reason (there's that word again!) for the debate that reveals what is truly happening here. To quote Phaedrus again (and I'm not picking on you Phaedrus, you just happen to state the issue so well in the thread) We forget that the womb of Christianity spawned modern science.
Only by chance, not by reason. The fallacy here is post hoc ergo propter hoc : The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.
It was the womb of Christianity that kept Europe in the horror of the Dark Ages for a millenia. It only when Aquinas made the mistake of trying to logically prove the existence of God and reintroduced the world to Aristotle that science advanced. The fact of the matter is it was logic and reason, not religion that are the parents of science.
Religion has fought every scientific advance, every step along the way. Just as it does today, fighting evolution, cloning, stem cell research, certain medical procedures and all the rest that will be commonplace 100 years from now. It will just be the people that could have been saved today, that will lose. And why this opposition to science? The issue is actually control. And the means to that control? Morality.
What is the chain of logic that motivates creationists? If evolution is proven correct, God is disproven, and society will suffer as people will no longer feel obligated to follow Christian morality. And this has proven true over the ages, the more science advances the less people do feel obligated to follow Christian morality.
When Nietche observed that 'God was dead' what he meant was, the moral influence of the concept of God was falling away from Europe. This proved true and would have proven true whether Nietche said it or not. That Napoleon was Nietche's inspiration demonstrates this fact.
The next typical objection is that the loss of God resulted in Marxism, and the horror that it has brought. What is conveniently forgotten is that with the loss of the influence of religion and the rise of capitalism Marx was trying to keep alive the principle of Altruism, since it was dying as a religious principle. Marx tried to create a philosophy of altruism without the God demanding it, but on 'scientific' principles. That he abandoned logic in the exercise is why it is such an abject failure. Rather than being 'scientific' it is about as unscientific as one can get.
Thus we have the desparate situation in the US today. One the one hand we have the failed socialist altruists on the left, and the dying religious altruists on the right. In the middle of this is the abandonment of the principle that truly makes America the great nation it is, although that is being murdered by the altruists on both extremes: Capitalism.
See, the laws of logic, reason, science and economy are laws that cannot be broken without having adverse results in reality. The fact is Capitalism cannot survive in an altruistic society, it is either/or. If the principle of serving others is primary then Capitalism is 'selfishness' by definition. As someone here recently wrote to me, selfishness is evil. Period. End of discussion. You go to hell. His arrogance was truly amazing. What he didn't realize he was also saying was that Capitalism is evil.
The reason why this is significant, especially here, is that 'religious conservatives' and 'left wing socialists' have more in common than they think. They differ on issues but not on fundamental philosophy: Altruism. This is why, if you do a Google search on 'social justice,' as left wing a concept as one can have, the first twenty hits will be the Catholic Church. Thus, the conservatives and liberals are in a secret pact with one another. They actually justify the existence of one another. They are two peas of the same pod. They are just arguing details. One wants to control your uterus, the other just steal from your pocketbook. Both want control. Both use the same justification, you don't own yourself, you are obligated to society.
The only true opposition to this is Capitalism. Capitalism, by its very nature, is logical, dependent upon reason, and moral. Moral in the sense it can only operate in the truth, that only correct actions will have correct results, and if one wishes to follow it, one must take the right actions. The moral principle than one works for one's own personal gain is in direct opposition with the altruistic principle that one is obligated to place others first.
I was listening to some preacher on the radio in this town recently and he was talking about how some of us reserve that last 5% of ourselves for ourselves and our own selfish desires, and that last 5% is what God really wants, so that one is wholly in the service to others. In other words, you cannot do anything for yourself, only for others. Thus one is a complete slave to others. This is in utter contradiction to the principle of Capitalism, which holds one is responsible to oneself, for oneself.
The contradictions inherent here, as in all altruism, is the real issue. And this brings us back to the importance of creationism to all this. Creationism is the rejection of science in favor of belief, logic in favor of faith. The twisting and the convolutions that creationists have to go through to seek to attempt to prove the unprovable utterly destroys the concepts of logic, facts and reason in the process. The same inability to see the fallacies inherent in creationism is the same inability to see that 'religious altruism' furthers, strenghthens and empowers the 'secular altruism' of the socialist left.
This is demonstrated by the supposedly 'compassionate conservative' President Bush coming up with a budget increase beyond anything seen in years. Giving $14 billion to Africa to fight AIDS just as the leftist liberal Bono from U2 wanted is a perfect example. Bush granted the moral high ground to the left, and thereby undercut the very Capitalism that this nation is dependent upon to survive. He will have given away the moral high ground already when they come to him with the next hike in the minimum wage. You must give to others who need it. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Altruism, religious obligation, communism. It is all the same.
This is why this nation is slowly dying and why nothing anyone does seems to change it. It is because both sides, right and left, reject logic, reject reason, and reject Capitalism. They are just two different kinds of altruists. They are only arguing about which part of the pie to control, not that there should be no control at all. Only true Capitalism asserts that. There are very few such Capitalists now. Everyone is afraid of being called 'selfish.' Being selfish being evil and all.
So we have secular altruists and religious altruists and their only point of disagreement is whether the source of the alruistic mandate is God or the state. This is where the creationism/evolution debate comes in. It determines how they divide the pie. As I have said before, even if proven true, creationism would have no practical effect. It would add nothing to science at all. Evolution actually explains how we can modify animal breeds to our purpose. It has actually been proven by the systematic breeding of farm animals.
And this brings me back to this thread. I see so many statements from ignorance. A typical example is the assertion there are no transitory forms between species. This is a specious argument, since each species is a species itself while in transition. The answer has been defined away in the assertion. Like some stated that scales and feathers are different from each other, which is precisely not true. Feathers have been shown quite precisely, and exactly how, to be modified scales. But since evidence, logic, and reason play no role, such fautly assertions are made endlessly. With no logic, no amount of discussion can convince anyone otherwise.
The heart of the creationists argument is, If evolution is proven false, creationism must be true. Faulty logic again, proving one wrong doesn't prove the other true. Each must prove itself. It is logically impossible to come up with a concept of a Supreme Intelligence creating everything, creating life, from the pure observation of the natural world. This is proven by the fact that evangelizing is necessary. If an Supreme Creator were so obvious then one wouldn't need to tell the gospel to anybody, they'd already know. That difference in languages creates differences in concept of Diety proves that it is a projection of man, not an objective fact. Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, the Tao, on and on and on. All have the same source. All come from the human mind. They are conceptual handles for the inexplicable.
And to go back to Boop's Dream. Even if true, it would have no practical effect. Couldn't build a house with it, couldn't build a fire. Nothing. On its own it has no meaning, only within a context that this experience proves something which proves something else which means the Bible must be true. It is circular reasoning so blatant that it is silly.
But the issue here isn't to prove anything, it is to destroy reason. Let's be very clear on that point. Only by destroying reason can one defend the irrationality of Altruism and dethrone Capitalism as selfish evil. Having said that, when you succeed don't be surprised when the USA falls, for just as logic was the mother of science so too it was the father of Freedom. If one studies the philosophy of the founders, not just their religious views, one finds that they held that Reason was the gift from God that made men Men. As Ethan Allen said, 'Reason is the only Oracle for man.' Not your dreams, not my dreams, not Boop's dreams, Reason.
We are coming to crossroads in the not too distant future and the choice will be between Capitalism or Altruism. If we don't turn from the road we are on the United States of America will become a failed experiment. If we don't see that Altruism will not work, cannot work, is irrational, is illogical and is the philosophical opposite of Capitalism then we are doomed. You won't have to read Atlas Shrugged to get it, you will live it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.