Posted on 02/24/2005 12:51:57 PM PST by xzins
How can anyone hold "simply to natural selection" and not have a cosmology, a view of origins that is somehow affected by all that selecting and leading up to all that selecting.
I think the author is suggesting that one cannot interpret reality in only a mechanistic, materialist way and pretend that that doesn't affect theology and morality. He concludes that for a Christian it must lead to either atheism or a deformed theology; for the non-sectarian person, it will lead to atheism. It seems a reasonable argument to me.
It might be interesting to note that Michio Kaku's narrative of multiverses now has parallel worlds separated by a single cosmic ray event rather than a millimeter.
It seems more like typical Creationist name-calling. This has been the pattern of Creationist argument for the last 50 years at least. The author is just another guy with no logical argument about biology so he resorts to attacking the religion of those who disagree with him.
If atheists exist, then it isn't necessarily name calling. I could simply be descriptive. We Christians, though, were once upon a time called atheists, so there is that side of it that could be an effort at labeling.
You must understand, though, that Christians would prefer that everyone be a Christian....therefore, not an atheist.
OH, yes. I see.
And Moslems would prefer that everyone be Moslems, etc.
None of this has any bearing on biology though. The author is just throwing his religious predjudices around withoug addressing any substantive scientific question. It's dishonest of him, but not unusual.
Hi, doc, how was your day.
I agree that moslems would prefer everyone be a moslem. That makes my point.
His point was not to address the ID vs Evolution debate except as it impacted on theology, morality, philosophy. He mentioned the terrible costs to Christian theology when others have tried to wed these two dissimilar worldviews.
His point is they don't mix, so don't surrender in the evolution/intelligent design debate.
Science cannot be reduced to a methodology. The scientist, like everyone elese, brings certain prejudices to his work. For instance, Darwinian evolution developed in a society that preferred gradualism to revolution and trial and error to logical deduction.
It's not an evolution vs intelligent design debate though; intellignet design is just a posture for creationism (at least the ID web pages so claim) as ID offers no lines of inquiry. It's just the old science vs mysticism (religious, new age, postmodernism, scientologist, and other of the anti-science allies) debate. The purpose is to destroy the idea that scientific inquiry is a legitimate method of gaining knowledge; then the anti-science groups can argue which one has the best form of mysticism.
Your post simply affirms his point that the two don't mix, doesn't it?
I think you would agree with him on that.
If you have any loyalty to science you would see that the great danger in Science is not coming from those who argue that life is simply too complex to have come into existence without a supernatural engineer or designer, but the danger to the credibility of science comes from those who would politicize the fields of scientific inquiry and prostitute it out to save the environment or to attack the tobacco and pharmeceutical companies.
It seems that a lot of energy is wasted in attempting to sheild science from any inquiry into a divine cause where at the same time the scientific community is committing suicide over political correctness and grant monies for studies that have no basis in reality.
Perhaps you have read Michael Crighton's speech on Aliens Causing Global Warming.
In many ways the attacks on intelligent design are similar to the attacks on people who deny the existence of Global Warming or deny that science has proven that second hand smoke is a danger. The Scientific Community has taken its stand on global Warming and the dangers of second hand smoke and resists any attempt to put these theories to any serious scientific inquiry. In the same way the evolutionsts are resistant to any attempt to prove that there simply in no "natural" mechanism for the creation of life and that therefore there must be a "super-natural" explanation.
You may ridicule the ID's all you want, but until you can not only explain the evolution of life itself, but also prove that life actually did evolve, then ridiculing the ID's does not move you closer to the truth. Right now all attempts to "create" life from non-life are using the intelligent design mechanism. IOW, men are attempting to use intelligence to bring about life. If they were attempting to do it by the evolutionary method, they would simply put some sterilized dirt in a sterile environment and wait a billion years to see if anything evolved. Of course they know it would NEVER happen, but then they all inisist that it did.
IMHO, neither a millimeter separation nor a cosmic ray event separation would work. Multi-world theories are based on superposition and multi-verses on a variety of other causes. BTW, Kaku doesn't show up on the comparitive cosmologies: Time before Time
Seems to me that no scientific theory should ever be "above" scrutiny. Any theory elevated to such stature, it is no longer science but religion. (I consider atheism to be a "religion".)
Frankly, I believe there is a tendency to dismiss challenges to the theory of evolution solely on a presumed agenda of the speaker. And it cuts both ways because there seems to also be a tendency of the critics to presume an agenda on the part of the scientist.
IMHO, both sides ought to lay down their mind-reading and prejudices and address all challenges to the theory objectively and respectfully.
One need not presume anything about the speaker's agenda. One only has to note that he does not make any attempt to back up statements such as these. For this reason, I do not presume any agenda, only either stupidity or just mean-spiritedness from the author; in either case, statements like his do not belong in a scientific discussion. (Maybe he doesn't meant to discuss science, in which case, I really don't care much for what he thinks or in this case, fails to think.)
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
I have not ridiculed ID. I will wait until some ID proponent actually makes a scientific statement to see if ridicule is warranted. So far, ID has not risen to the level of anything scientific. When someone proposes an observation that could distinguish ID from evolutionary theory, then ID may have something interesting to say. I have heard and read what the ID leaders say; so far it's neither coherent nor useful.
His point seems to be the exact opposite. He claims that the outcome of some biological observations lead to religious claims. I don't agree with much of anything the guy says. His comments are scientifically ignorant and thus, it is hard to take anything he says seriously.
I don't see it.
Where does he discuss biology?
I agree with you, and would add that it never hurts to continue scrutinizing even those things we consider "laws."
What I liked about this article was twofold: it called for a continuation of the ID/evolution debate, and it explained the weaknesses of the compromises that have been attempted to date. I know there are many who think natural selection and Christian revelation can go hand in hand. They see natural selection at work in the world all around them. Yet, broad trends selecting for certain characteristics don't seem to change the species at all.
However, despite the above contrary evidence, if one's worldview is premised on that selection having been a uniform process for eons, then one still doesn't get any idea where the original group of subjects that began naturally selecting came from.
The only way to go back from that point would be with one's assumptions...or with some kind of revelation.
In the 60’s the measure of cosmic microwave background radiation showed that the universe is expanding, hence space/time had a beginning. Observations since that date have repeatedly confirmed the inflationary theory/big bang model of the universe. It was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science: that there was a beginning, an uncaused cause, i.e. God. A variety of highly speculative cosmologies have been offered since that time (Time before Time) including multi-worlds, multi-verse, cyclic, ekpyrotic and imaginary time. The cosmologies which extend time prior to the beginning of this universe all call for a prior geometry, i.e. prior space/time. None of them can explain why any such prior geometry should exist at all, why and how it began by natural cause prior to causation. Yet that is the first challenge – only a non-metaphysical answer would entitle an atheist to claim he is not religious when debating science with me.
2. Information in Biological Systems
Information (Shannon) is paraphrased as “successful communications”. More specifically, it is the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action, not the message (DNA). The DNA is as good dead as alive. The challenge is to explain where this “successful communication” originated in the universe and in biological systems, why it exists at all?
In discussions, we have observed that successful communications have three types of causation within a living organism: interrupt (presence of food, heat, radiation, etc.) – cyclic (timed or rhythmic) – and will.
The will is most interesting because there is a “will to live” which permeates the entire biosphere (#3 below and in Scripture, nephesh) and then there is a “self-will” (in Scripture, ruach) which is unique to mankind, e.g. intention, abstraction, anticipation, altruism, etc. This is the extent to which I expect an atheist to offer proof by scientific materialism to avoid being called “religious” in his beliefs.
Those who are not intellectually atheist or drawn to atheism out of a rebellious attitude towards God may also have a sense of life “beyond” space/time; we Christians call that “ears to hear” (in Scripture, neshama). Still further, there is a higher identity, one presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. This we Christians call being saved, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (in Scripture, ruach Elohim). I would not expect an atheist to be able to explain such levels of will.
3. Will to Live
The “will to live” permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. For that reason, we assert that it is field-like (existing in all points of space/time). It is observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle. It is observed in the simplest of life forms (cell intelligence, amoeba). It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) – the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain. The challenge is to explain what the “will to live” is, physically and how and why it emerged in nature.
4. Physical Constants/Laws
The physical constants and physical laws are in a very delicate balance. A slight change one way or another and there would be no life or no universe at all. Examples include the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, carbon resonance, gravity, hydrogen bond (water, DNA), strong nuclear force, thermodynamic entropy. The challenge is to explain how and why it should be perfectly balanced. Appeals to the plentitude argument (anything that can happen, has) will only work in an infinite past, i.e. to make that argument one would have to first answer challenge #1.
5. Limit to Dimensional Perception
Our vision and our minds are limited. We perceive in four dimensions (3 space, 1 time) - a seemingly arbitrary selection of four coordinates when string theory suggests there may be more than ten. The challenge is to explain why nature would select for these four – why not three or five?
6. Semiosis
Semiosis is the language or symbols of communication in biological life – the encoding and decoding. There are two sides – the language itself (DNA, RNA) and the understanding of it in the molecular machinery. The challenge is how did semiosis emerge by natural causes?
7. Functional Complexity
Functional complexity is the organization of molecular machinery in an organism oriented to functions for the benefit of the greater organism. Examples include cardiovascular, neural and digestive systems. The challenge is how and why such organization would emerge by natural causes – and in particular, how and why there exists organization within certain machinery which itself relies on a component to perform its function. Examples include the brain to the neural system, the heart to the cardiovascular, the stomach to the digestive.
8. Master Control Genes
Eyes developed concurrently across phyla in invertebrates as well as vertebrates. Likewise there have been virtually no new phyla since the Cambrian Explosion. The common explanation for this phenomenon is an immutability of master control genes. The challenge is why they should in particular be immutable in nature?
9. Qualia
Qualia are the properties of sensory experiences which are epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them and therefore, are also incommunicable. Examples include likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil. The challenge is to explain how qualia emerged through nature alone.
In the absence of such explanations, I aver that correspondent atheist's worldview is faith based.
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.