Skip to comments.Why evolutionary materialism leads to the unreality of your existence
Posted on 07/28/2013 3:57:08 PM PDT by spirited irish
American Christian author Dr. Frank Turek notes that Cambridge-trained Ph.D. Stephen Meyer's New York Times best-seller, "Darwin's Doubt," is creating a major scientific controversy. Because Darwinists absolutely hate it, Meyer's well-reasoned argument that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the evidence at hand elicits irrational accusations that Meyers is anti-scientific and guilty of endangering sexual freedom everywhere. (Darwin's Doubt, Turek, Townhall.com, July 09, 2013)
"Neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning to the same question: 'What caused biological forms and the appearance of design in the history of life?'" (ibid.)
The real issue here is not "anti-scientific" intelligent design or for that matter, the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo ("special creation" as evolutionary materialists call it) versus "scientifically enlightened reason and science," but about creation account vs. anti-creation account (Darwinian materialism).
The reason Darwinists on one hand, and intelligent design and Genesis account proponents on the other, arrive at radically different answers is because Darwinists are neo-pagan materialists and the other two are not.
While intelligent design proponents are open to intelligent causes (just like crime scene investigators are), Genesis account creationists hold that our Creator, the living, personal Triune God, the Divine Source of life who exists outside of the space/time dimension is Jesus Christ, the angel who spoke with Moses at Sinai.
Foremost of His miracles is creation out of nothing six days of creation rather than the billions of years of evolutionary process out of already existing or spontaneously generated matter:
"The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be." (Philosopher and New Testament scholar William Lane Craig, quoted in "If God created the universe, then who created God?' by Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International)
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27)
As all men are the spiritual image-bearers of the Triune God, it logically follows that each male and female is a trinity of being of soul, spirit, and body:
"The essence of the human is not the body, but the soul. It is the soul alone that God made in his own image and the soul that he loves....For the sake of the soul...the Son of God came into the world...." (Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 25, Ancient Christian Devotional, Oden and Crosby, p. 153)
For fifteen hundred years, Christendom and then later Protestant America had followed St. Augustine (AD 354-430) in affirming that all men are three part spiritual image-bearers of the transcendent Triune God (Gen. 1:27). This unique view of man was affirmed by the brilliant French economist, statesman, and author Frederic Bastiat. Man as God's spiritual image-bearer is the precious gift from God, which includes the physical, intellectual, and moral life:
"He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. Life, faculties, production in other words, individuality, liberty, property this is man (and) these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Bastiat, "How Evil Works," David Kupelian, p. 8)
Vishal Mangalwadi, India's foremost Christian scholar, writes that this unique concept of man as God's spiritual image-bearer gave birth to the "belief in the unique dignity of human beings," and this is
"...the force that created Western civilization, where citizens do not exist for the state but the state exists for the individuals. Even kings, presidents, prime ministers, and army generals cannot be allowed to trample upon an individual and his or her rights." (Truth and Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations, pp. 12-13)
Neo-pagan, anti-human God-haters
Darwinian materialists are anti-Triune God:
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity omnipotent chance...." (T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal, pp. 101-102, 1975)
They hate the very thought of Him as their Father and seek escape to a nowhere land, an impersonal, collective communal unconscious where man as God's spiritual image-bearer, immutable truth, order, moral law, sexual ethics, authority, hell, heaven, angels, demons, meaning, and purpose do not exist. For these reasons and others, such as Original Sin and the two created sexes, they fiercely reject intelligent design but viciously hate creation ex nihilo, and choose rather to embrace evolutionary and materialist conceptions. The truth of this can be seen in the following quotes:
"The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. The voluntary...reasons for holding doctrines of materialism...may be predominantly erotic, as they were in the case of Lamettrie...or predominantly political as they were in the case of Karl Marx." (Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means," p. 315, from Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, E. Michael Jones, p. 27)
"...one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched.... The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories." (One Long Argument, 1991, p. 99, Ernst Mayr (d. 2005), Professor of Zoology at Harvard University)
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." ("Billions and Billions of Demons," Richard Lewontin, PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University)
Metaphysical nihilism: everything and nothing
Metaphysical nihilism (all that exists is matter and energy) is the metaphysics of both physical materialism and nonphysical materialist conceptions.
What chiefly separates these two is whether matter is physical or nonphysical. If physical, then the Triune God, heaven, hell, soul/spirit, angels, and demons do not exist. But if nonphysical, then for example, spirits, ghosts, divine sparks, Transcended Masters, intra-cosmic deities, Orobouros, astral planes, divine impersonal mind, and Christ consciousness exist but the material world is an illusion.
Brooks Alexander, the founder of The Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP), an evangelical ministry and think-tank in Berkeley, California, identifies both physical and nonphysical materialist conceptions as the two sides of pagan monism. Because they are from the same root, they tend to cross-pollinate and mingle,
"...producing a brood of offspring that exhibits the genetic heritage of its parents in a confused and confusing array. Soon it becomes impossible to say whether a given movement, trend or school of thought is a secular impulse that has absorbed Eastern/occult values, or an Eastern/occult teaching that has dressed itself in secular language." (The Rise of Cosmic Humanism: What is Religion?" Brooks Alexander, SCP Journal, 1981-82, p. 2)
In other words, for many years secular-human physicalists have been quietly crossing over into spiritual or cosmic conceptions of matter and embracing for example, Zen Buddhism and Teilhards idea, which leapfrogs off of Darwin's theory.
The apostate French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) taught that an impersonal god-force emerges from spontaneously generated matter. According to Teilhard, this evolution of a god-force results in evolution becoming "conscious of itself" and ultimately, in the transformation of all physical matter into nonphysical divine matter defined by Teilhard as "Christ consciousness" or "pure spirit." Teilhard called this final stage of evolution the "Omega Point" and "the cosmic Christ."
You can be as God
The perennially persuasive Big Lie underlies both physical and nonphysical conceptions. This thought is expressed openly in the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and Dr. Beverly Galyean, leading exponent of occult Luciferian New Age confluent education:
"The Buddhists and the Jains do not depend on God; but the whole force of their religion is directed to the great central truth in every religion: to evolve a God out of man." (Inspired Talks, Ramakrishna Vivekananda Center, 1958, p. 218)
"Once we begin to see that we are all God, that we have the attributes of God, then, I think the whole purpose of human life is to reown the Godlikeness within us...So my whole view is very much based on that idea." (Galyean quoted by Francis Adeney, Educators Look East, Radix 12, No. 3, Nov-Dec. 1980, p. 21)
This same idea expressed in secular terms such as self-realization and self-actualization (a term coined by Abraham Maslow) underlies many contemporary psychotherapies.
Nihilism: You are of nothing
"Behold, you are of nothing, and your work of that which hath no being: he that hath chosen you is an abomination." Isaiah 41:24
Though evolutionary materialists congratulate themselves for being scientifically enlightened, cutting edge 'elite' free thinkers, the truth is otherwise, meaning that materialists, whether of the secular physical or occult spiritual school are miserable self-deceived nihilists for whom there is neither source for "self" (conscious life, psyche, individual mind) nor for meaning and purpose in life. They are "of nothing" and the unreality of their own existence is the devastating price they have paid the devil, the father of death and nihilism, for "saving" them from the living God.
The misery inducing "salvation" of "nonself" is not something new but something ancient. It began with Buddha who craved God-like power to deconstruct and reinterpret the soul. Taking power not only requires the murder of God but the teaching of lies.
Jesus to Buddha,
"....you took God away from them (and) your espousal of an absence of self is the most unique and fearsome claim you made...You turned from Hinduism because it said there was an essential self, which they called the atman." (The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, Ravi Zacharias, pp.59, 67)
Six centuries before Jesus Christ, the Buddha already knew that if all that exists is matter then the human self cannot exist either:
"Therefore, he deconstructed the Hindu idea of the soul. When one starts peeling the onion skin of one's psyche, he discovers that there is no solid core at the center of one's being. Your sense of self is an illusion. Reality is nonself (anatman). You don't exist. Liberation, the Buddha taught, is realizing the unreality of your existence." (The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, Vishal Mangalwadi, p. 6)
If all that exists is matter and energies working on and through matter, then it logically follows that there is no source for life, conscious life (soul, spirit and will), the two sexes, human dignity and worth, or for unalienable constitutional rights beginning with the right to life, liberty, and property. Without the Triune God, meaning drains into meaninglessness and man is reduced to less than nothing, a conclusion Buddha reached long before Marxist Communists attempted to scientifically re-engineer human beings after the fashion of metaphysical nihilism.
"Thought crime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for awhile....but sooner or later they were bound to get you." George Orwell, 1984
After seizing control of Russia, Marxist materialists utilized propaganda of the lie, re-education with major emphasis on Darwinism, revision of history, and other confusion-inducing, mind-and-thought-control techniques in connection with brain-altering drugs, electro-shock therapy, terror, and other brutal measures to
"...liquidate all expressions of individual identity in favor of an impersonal collective, communal consciousness." (The Book that Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi, p. 74)
Following in Buddha's footsteps, Western and American evolutionary materialists took our Creator away and replaced Him with nihilist Darwinian materialism. Then they conceptually reduced His spiritual image-bearers to less than nothing, taught monstrous lies as scientific fact, morally corrupted Westerners and Americans, and brutally ridiculed and demonized anyone who dared speak truth to their lies. By these means they set Western and American civilization adrift in infinite nothingness.
Nihilism is spiritual, moral, intellectual, and cultural suicide. It is the devil's inferno here on earth, the void of everything and nothing in which death is life, evil is good, lie is truth, up is down, male is female, female is male, rolling in filth is good clean fun, bad is good but evil better, and the father of nihilism is god.
Choose eternal blessing and not cursing
The unreality of "self" is a waking nightmare fueled by horrors of conscience, obsession with death, and hellish terrors of mind that make suicide, murder, abortion, euthanasia, and genocide into virtues.
"...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life...." Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"Thou hast brought forth, O Lord, my soul from hell: thou hast saved me from them that go down into the pit." Psalm 30:3
The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Living Word become Flesh, Jesus Christ the Physician, came to heal the spiritually sick and dying, to save their immortal souls. Just as we are on the verge of going down into the pit, ready to depart to the unseen world, if we will repent and turn back to Him, then by His providence and grace our Lord will revive our souls and deliver us from those accursed horrors of conscience and ghastly terrors of mind which by reason of our sin are as hell searing itself into and possessing our very minds. (Psalm 116:3)
But whoever rejects the Physician, the Divine Source of life and soul, rejects His prescription, thereby destroys him or herself. So we ought to turn back to Him right now, before it is too late.
Thank you for the post. I have always said that evolution essentially removes the obligation of man to worship God. With no obligation to God, anything is possible, ergo you see the results in current culture.
What is a “Darwinist?”
Is that like a “Einsteinist?”
>>Thank you for the post. I have always said that evolution essentially removes the obligation of man to worship God. <<
It does no such thing. You confuse cause with effect.
Now I shall silently watch the thread and say no more.
If the truth is on your side, why do you resort to such insults?
Amazing how the Enemy can take the first few chapters of Genesis and turn it into a bone of contention between believers.
I am not taking the bait.
The Catholic church doesn't seem to think so.
Is that like a Einsteinist?
It's more like a "Watson-Crickest", I would say. Einstein is more for the physics worshippers.
Let’s be very clear: this Stephen Meyer is *NOT* a biologist. His PhD is in physics.
I guess if I could come up with some ludicrous claim about physics, I could write books on it and make lots of money, too. After all, I have a PhD after my name—and it’s in science—so that makes me perfectly qualified to write about physics.
Whatever the hype about this book, I don’t expect most scientists are even going to notice it. We have our hands full with, you know, actual science.
an idiot that has “faith” in a theory that has no tangible proof yet accuse Creationists of the same thing.
If the truth is on your side, why do you resort to such insults?
Spirited: You have it backward. What you mistake for insult is in fact truth. From the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans in the West to Buddhists and Hindus in the East and native Americans throughout the Americas, all worship matter and energy in one form or another; and under one name or another. And this is pagan monism.
ping to read with coffee (it ain’t making it with the beer!)
Thanx for the ping. So good to see some of the inspired writing of Ravi Zacharias being quoted.
By traditional definition of the word "science", the scientific enterprise requires a commitment to "methodological naturalism" meaning: natural explanations for natural processes.
Science cannot and is not intended to deal with spiritual or metaphysical matters.
Even if, for example, "G*d" is the best answer for a question, then science must throw up its hands and say, "we don't know" or ascribe it to some process of random chance.
That's the traditional nature of science.
And the results are exactly as the article describes -- when methodological naturalism leads to philosophical naturalism, then the soul, in effect, commits suicide and humans become, well, less than human.
Perhaps the analogy of fire will help -- when humans are in charge of it, fire (or science) is highly useful for heating and cooking, etc.
When fire takes charge, it can instantly kill us.
That's the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Of course, there is no scientific "faith", since to become a faith, science must be elevated from methodological to philosophical naturalism, and philosophical naturalism, by definition, is not science, it's religion.
Can I say that more simply?
Science is intended to be a box of tools, highly useful in building or repairing our material needs -- that's methodological naturalism.
But if we set our box of tools up on some alter, and bow down to worship it, that does not increase the utility of those tools, and makes us into idiots -- that's philosophical naturalism.
Nor does science ever use the term "tangible proof" relating to hypotheses and theories.
Instead, hypotheses are "confirmed" according to their ability to make strong predictions and withstand falsifiable tests.
Since basic evolution hypotheses have passed these tests many times, they are considered "confirmed theories".
And scientists do not have "faith" in a theory.
Instead, like other tools in their tool-box, scientists use the theory in every-day work, until it produces some result they didn't expect.
Then they sit down, scratch their heads, and begin work on some new hypothesis to explain their unexpected results.
That's what science is all about.
I’m not convinced Darwinism and Spiritualism are incompatible.
I am sure that strict materialism is a dead end, though. Materialism seems to describe only part of all reality.
I and most Creationists have no problem with “ science” it’s the evolutionists lies about creation that is an offence to us. I have three or four different books showing that The religion on Darwin is not only false but impossible I will go so far as to say that anyone that believes that NOTHING created something and the human eyeball was the work of chance is more than stupid. Yet some so called Scientist would rather believe that than admit to a super natural Creator.
Any evolution believers here that would like to explain what caused the “ big bang”? I thought not.
Political evolutionists, by ignorance or intent, use only a portion of the title of Charles Darwin’s book. The full title is “The Origin of Species and The Superiority of the Races.” Whoops...that doesn’t fit the liberal agenda.
“Political evolutionists, by ignorance or intent, use only a portion of the title of Charles Darwins book. The full title is The Origin of Species and The Superiority of the Races. Whoops...that doesnt fit the liberal agenda.”
Sorry, but no. The full title of the first edition of the book was: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin doesn’t even talk about human beings in the book. The word “Race” in the title is used in the 19th Century Victorian English sense, as in a group of animals that can interbreed. Modern readers who obviously haven’t read the book and regard Darwin as some kind of comic-book super-villain see the word “race” and point and sputter, but Darwin wasn’t referring to what we now term human races.
For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to “The Origin of Species.”
“What is a Darwinist?”
Spirited: To the narrow-eyed and small-minded it’s an exciting bone to endlessly gnaw and contend against.
Sorry, but those arguments are all bogus.
They've been addressed and refuted many times by serious scientists.
Many have been presented on these threads, and answered by amatures like myself.
If you wish to report your favorites here, I'll be happy to respond to each.
Let me just remind you now that it's very important not to confuse scientific facts with hypotheses and theories.
There are many confirmed observations (aka "facts") supporting evolution related hypotheses, but confirmation of a hypothesis is required before it can be classified as "theory".
Since some hypotheses related to evolution have been confirmed many times, they are classified as "theories".
But others have not been confirmed and are still considered as just hypotheses.
Examples are origin of life ideas like abiogenesis and panspermia.
fish hawk: "I will go so far as to say that anyone that believes that NOTHING created something and the human eyeball was the work of chance is more than stupid."
Let me explain your problem with some questions:
Question: do you believe in G*d? Answer: of course.
Question: do you believe that G*d created the Universe? Answer: of course.
Question: do you believe that G*d created the Universe with His purposes, design and plan in mind? Answer: of course.
Question: do you believe that what we see in the material world represents the unfolding of G*d's original plan? Answer: of course.
Question: then, if what we see appears to be evolutionary, in what possible sense is that not part of G*d's plan? Answer: in no sense.
So what is your problem with evolution?
I came across this in my reading the other day, and it seems to confirm your insight:
Today's science has achieved remarkable successes and is an indispensable aspect of humanity. Without science, there can be no progress. Yet, science cannot explain, it is not equipped to explain anything that is not subject to algorithmic rules, to ordinary mathematical descriptions, or in the case of physical systems, partial differential equations. It cannot explain the qualitative aspects of reality. Present science cannot completely explain not only living processes in large aggregates of cells, organisms, etc., or what we may term holistic organizations (it certainly has had great success to account for molecular biochemical processes), but also noetic aspects of reality, mind and consciousness. It cannot explain or even account for the experiences of art, for the entire experience of human life, driven by the emotional levels of the psyche. And certainly it has little to say about the deep underlying nature of the cosmos, or reality, in general.... We believe that present-day science needs to be extended beyond its present limits and it needs a new ontological model of reality, what we term here the science of wholeness. Menas Kafatos, "The Science of Wholeness," in Analectica Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Volume CVII Astronomy and Civilization in the New Enlightenment, 2011, A-T Tymieniecka and A. Grandpierre, eds.Kafatos wrote a wonderful book, coauthored with Robert Nadeau, The Non-Local Universe. Highly recommended!
It will be argued that it is not science's business to deal with the qualitative aspects of reality. But if one is trying to understand the Universe in toto, and man's place in it (not to mention the emergence of life and mind), one cannot leave them out. To attempt to do so is a kind of falsification of reality.
Thank you for writing, freerepublicchat!
Spirited: To the narrow-eyed and small-minded its an exciting bone to endlessly gnaw and contend against.
Perhaps you should stop using the term, then, lest someone conclude that you are narrow-eyed and small-minded.
The point of my response is this: nitpickers are narrow-eyed and small-minded precisely because they focus on and chew away at the small and unimportant as a way of controlling and dominating other people. As for your suggestion: I never allow such people to control and dominate my thoughts and speech.
And the point of my response is that you seem to be the person here who’s determined to gnaw on the term “Darwinist.” Your post is an excellent pot-kettle-black example.
Whoever can control the terminology controls the debate. Agreeing to an immutable definition means a loss of control.
My problem with the religion of evolution is: they talk like there is fossil evidence when there isn’t, put down creationists because they have faith ( so that is religion and not science) when evos have absolutely no proof to lay out before us fossil or otherwise but they have faith that someday they will dig it up ( religion not science). The play like the first and second laws of thermodynamics ( and entropy) does not exist. (which of course makes evolution impossible) And Mathematics which tells ;us that if life was by selection and time and chance, it would be a one with enough zeros behind it to fill enough book pages to reach to the moon if stacked up. So how ‘bout YOU entering here your absolute proof of evolution, NOT Micro (changes in a species like dogs and bird beaks) but Macro, dogs to cats, lizards to birds chimps to man.) If you can show us that, you have more proof than the leading Evo scientist alive today. Question: what evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules? Evos answer: Don’t reject a scientific theory just because you have a religious prejudice. This is because they can’t answer the question. try reading Defeating Darwinism by opening minds by Phillip E. Johnson ( yes, Darwin is an ism) Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, PHD. The collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. Ready with an Answer by Ankerberg and Weldon ( False assumptions concerning Evolution. Read these and point out to us all the false info in them.
Do lies of omission count as "false info"?
My problem with some critics of evolution is that they hold to some cartoon version of the subject no matter how often they’re exposed to the facts. There’s tons of fossil evidence assuming you don’t refuse to see it. The 2nd Law has nothing to do with evolution. Nobody claims dogs evolved to cats or chimps to man. Evolution doesn’t depend on life “evolving” from nonliving molecules. It’s very easy to criticize a field when you don’t take the trouble to learn the first (true) thing about it.
BY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, no doubt I know way more truth than you do. Enjoy the cool aid. ( and read the books I mentioned.)Oh, BTW would you tell us what caused what we call the Big Bang. only a God hating idiot would think that nothing nowhere made matter. Notice, I didn’t say YOU were an idiot, just those that are religious zealots for Darwin.
evidently lies of omission do count, as you people try to make the general public believe there is a fossil that proves evolution is a fact. Fossil data has so many gaps and holes in it , it looks like the bodies at the St. Valentines shooting.
Apparently you don't know enough not to pull out the old "cats evolving from dogs" canard.
only a God hating idiot would think that nothing nowhere made matter.
So without saying I believe that, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of (a) why that's idiotic and (b) why it implies a hatred of God.
Thank you so very much for the insightful, informative essay, dear sister in Christ!
Good thing she’s not running for president as a buzz cut guy with big ears.
Didn’t take long for it to get personal.
When fire takes charge, it can instantly kill us. That's the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Problems arise when people "do" theology or philosophy under the color of science, e.g. Dawkins, Lewontin. And, no doubt, some would also say that intelligent design supporters - e.g. Meyers - are doing the same thing from the polar opposite position, i.e. pro-God v. anti-God.
In my view, it would be better for a scientist faced with an unanswerable question (e.g. origin of inertia, information [Shannon, successful communication], space/time) simply to say "it is unknowable by the scientific method" rather than to default to his theological/philosophical presupposition - whether "God did it" or "Nature did it." Both are statements of faith. And offering a statement of faith is fine, but it should not be called "science" because it was not derived by the scientific method and cannot be falsified (Popper et al.)
Science is not the enemy of Christianity, though some atheists claim that it is.
The Hebrew term 'bara' is used three times in Genesis, one of which is when single celled living things are transitioned by God intervention into organisms of multi-cellular cooperative functioning. The word is not used to differentiate the expression of life arising in the lifeless Universe, so we may conclude that the expression of life was 'built into the plans' for the Universe at the moment of the first use of bara for descriptor. The third use is when God breathed the Spirit into Adam. These moments described with the use of bara might be seen as interventions specifically by God for new creations not built into the original starting phenomenon. At the first moment of Creation, all the dimensions to be expressed came into being and will manifest as phase shifts reveal the growing complexity.
Evidently such questions are simply banned from, say, the Journal of Theoretical Biology, which is probably the field's flagship journal....
There seems to be an almost religious commitment to the doctrines of naturalism and materialism over there.
Nonetheless, I do believe that a paradigm shift is coming sooner or later not motivated by biologists per se, but by physicists and mathematicians.
I'm all for "cross-disciplinary" investigation of the issues of life and mind.... We probably need to have philosophy weigh in, too. This will drive the Darwinists nutz!
Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models. Physical systems require many levels of models, some formally irreducible to one another, but we must still understand how the levels are related. Evolution also produces hierarchies of organization from cells to societies, each level requiring different models, but the higher levels of the hierarchy must have emerged from lower levels. Life must have emerged from the physical world. This emergence must be understood if our knowledge is not to degenerate (more than it has already) into a collection of disjoint specialized disciplines.
To the observer, it is as if the historical sciences construct a blueprint based on quantized historical data (fossils, artifacts, etc.) and thereafter associate new findings into that blueprint. If the finding cannot be fit, then the blueprint must change.
The historical record is not continuous, e.g. not every living thing left a fossil in the geologic record. The bottom line is that historical sciences deal with quantizations of a presumed continuum (the theory.) Other disciplines of science, deal with the theory itself - which mostly can be recreated under laboratory conditions, i.e. put to an empirical test. Or in the alternative, continuing observations can accrue to the merit of the theory, e.g. quantum field theory.
Or more simply put, to the historical sciences the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence whereas to the "hard" sciences the reverse is true, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Biologists have always invited chemists to the table. But the dynamics of evolution theory has changed since the discovery of DNA and subsequently, the biologists inviting physicists and mathematicians (especially information theorists) to the table. That is the underlying theme of Pattees point about the physics of symbols, the epistemic cut.
For Lurkers interested in Physics theory corresponding to your view: