Posted on 11/06/2003 7:34:45 PM PST by Heartlander
Although the majority of the views from this website do not represent my views in any fashion, I can relate to this ‘one’ article.
I respect the fact that they actually put it on their website.
The article shows the same tired misunderstanding of where morality & consciousness come from that many creationists here do.
I may be a collection of atoms, but this collection is organized in a self-sustaining way, that is able to perceive itself and understand the world around it, and understands cause vs. effect & past vs. future, and wants very much to remain a self-sustaining totality.
It's this totality which defines "me". And all talk of morality concerns this totality and what is necessary to sustain it. The fact that a forest is made up of lots of trees doesn't mean a forest is "just a big tree".
Most people use anthropomorphic, analogy-rich language, as it tends to be more understandable overall than the dry-as-dust technical jargon of some papers. Geologically "sudden" is different from "suddenly one day." A scientist talking about the "design" of an organ may not necessarily think it was designed by Zeus, as "design" may just be shorthand for "the way it has evolved to work."
... today's prominent Darwin defenders ... a collective case of cognitive dissonance ... Dr. Massimo Pigliucci ... describes the natural world as being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word "design" is incorrect ... And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to describe something that can't possibly exist ... Spare me, please, from blind and random "improvements." ... in order for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or standard to fulfill ... Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful if it exists. Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble ... Robert Wright ... goes on to refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to positive feedback ... Whether it is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given their presuppositions .. the problem I have always had with the term "natural selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term "cybersex." ... One could make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a selection. But natural? A selection is a choice ... As a technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron ... The words used by modern-day Darwinists are not a sidelight, they are symptomatic of a fissure in the structure of their thought. I believe that when someone wrongly calls the evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing. It is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word that will work. It is because there is something brilliant, something awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct is to want to know who gets credit for it. The impulse is innate and proper. It is the decision to give credit to an abstract and unauthored "process" which is out of sync ... Life is an elusive concept that cannot be quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent book ... Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life, one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers life. Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are supplemented with the vision of the mind. No biologist contemptuous of metaphysics can claim, if he is consistent, that he has observed life, let alone its evolution. We then start to have an aesthetic appreciation for the beauty and ingenuity of these life forms, and it is not long before we get around to talking about abstract concepts such as rights, justice, and equality, and assigning some species - namely, us - some kind of moral responsibilities for them, none of which can be measured according to scientific methods.
That, then, is why the language is confused: because the ideas are confused, because the mind is confused. To the extent that our Darwinians and humanists seek answers to humanity's dilemmas using the natural sciences, they are absolutely on the right track. To the extent that they reject the idea of a divine or supernatural creator using the natural sciences, they are not only overstepping the boundaries of their field, but they are plainly contradicted by their language, their goals, and their lives.
Or, to put it another way: The emperor has no clothes.
Yet it's amazing how many try to do just that.
Great article, P! thanks for pinging me to it; and thanks Heartlander, for posting it!
So much for objectivism.
One can go down to the nearest duck pond to observe the role of rape in duck society. Not only will you see female ducks being raped by maverick males, you will also see the female raped again by her own mate -- probably to allow for a fair race between competing sperm.
Ahem....
Since men cannot be lepidoptera
We must make do with helicoptera
And lacking lovely, powdered wings
We do the job with metal things
(Modest bow to thunderous applause.)
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.