Posted on 11/06/2003 7:34:45 PM PST by Heartlander
Let's go to the videotape...
Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be. Let me give you examples.
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent Design theory ( "Design Yes, Intelligent No" ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume, are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as concepts, they defy common sense. He 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.
Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers" with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random "improvements." In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly creation." [2] That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable to whom, and on what basis? Another term which receives heavy usage is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard. But in order for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or standard to fulfill. If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success? What if chickens were supposed to fly? What if beavers were supposed to build A-frames? Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful if it exists. Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble.
Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he 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.[3] Maybe evolution is a focus group!? 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. One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it!
It brings up 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." If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true to its object. Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word which it is only supposed to modify. Contrarily, one could have a blue book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book. One could make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a selection. But natural? A selection is a choice, and only a conscious being that can process information can really make a choice, or even input information into a system which will later result in a choice. However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of existence, that is an occurrence. We are comfortable with "natural selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron.
I know what this proves. It proves absolutely nothing. This is innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque theories about the inadequacy of language. One could say that a critique based on language is aimed at the most inconsequential part of any argument, like saying that Kierkegaard would have been more compelling if he had typed in New Times Roman. However, a more careful consideration will reveal that exactly the opposite is true, at least in this case. 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.
Let me make the point in a more obvious way. Here are two written accounts:
A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.
B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
If asked where these two fictitious excerpts came from, most would say that A was from a textbook or scientific journal, and probably describes events observed under a microscope or in a laboratory. B would be a typical example of newspaper journalism. Most people would say that, of course, they are not talking about the same thing. But could they be? Well, to the materialist, the answer is certainly negative. To those who don't take their Darwinism decaffeinated, who embrace it as a philosophy which excludes any non-natural explanations for life's origins, the answer is absolutely. B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same. Any outrage or emotion felt upon reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response, but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had happened. In this view, A is probably the most responsible account. Nature, with its fittest members leading the way, marches on. I think I would be correct in stating that many would disagree with, or be offended by, that analysis. What I am not really sure of, and would like explained to me, is why? What is in view is not so much of a Missing Link, as much as a Missing Leap: the leap from the physical to the metaphysical. Taken as a starting point, I have no problem with quantitative assessments. They establish a baseline of knowledge for us.
But what about life? Life is an elusive concept that cannot be quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent book. [4] 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.
I think it is safely assumed by all parties that, although we have some physical and behavioral characteristics in common, humans are significantly more intelligent and sophisticated than our mammal friends, and possessed of a vastly different consciousness. For whatever reason, we are unique enough to make us "special." The problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less why, this consciousness emerged. And a bigger problem is the strangeness of our consciousness: abstract self-doubt, philosophical curiosity, existential despair. How does an intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for battle? Why do we consider compassion for the sick to be a good thing when it can only give us a disadvantage in our vicious eat-or-be-eaten world? Why would these traits emerge so late in the game, when one would think evolution would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines? We cannot acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution, any more than a sine wave can develop separation anxiety. And yet many who swear by the powers of Darwin and empiricism also cling, hypocritically, to a quite unproven assumption that the human race is somehow set apart, created for a glorious destiny. Just as determinists argue undeterministically, scientists believe unscientifically. The most serious offenders in this category have to be the various minds behind the Humanist Manifesto, who roundly reject the metaphysical even as they affirm it, by assumption, in their grand prescriptions for humanity. This is called talking out of two sides of the mouth. Now, biologically speaking, developing this trait would be a great way for an organism to gain a tactical advantage in the struggle for survival. Unfortunately, it also opens the creature up for easy attack in life's intellectual jungles. These contradictory assumptions met each other vividly in the theater of mainstream culture last year, during the pop radio reign of "Bad Touch," the Bloodhound Gang song. You know the song: it was the one with the refrain of "You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals / So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." It was pure Darwinism for the dance floor and became an instant dorm room classic, despite (or most likely, because of) the fact that it was too explicit for the kitsch it aspired to. The party music stopped, however, upon arrival of Thornhill and Palmer's The Natural History of Rape, the book that investigated whether rape was a genetically determined trait that enabled humans to climb the evolutionary ladder. The book's research was as swiftly refuted as The Bell Curve's. However, the white-hot center of controversy surrounding this book was not the research, but the inferences that might have been made from it: the fear that rape could be rationalized, or even accepted, on a biological basis. The science may have been bad, but the logic is faultless. Why can't a chameleon's color change, a bat's sonar, and a man's sexual coercion all be examples of successful evolutionary "design"? Given the absence of any empirical alternative to social Darwinism, the nonconsensual Discovery Channel bump-and-grind is a pretty educated approach to sexual ethics. I repeat: one cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it.
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. G.K. Chesterton, writing a century ago, astutely observed this dichotomy in the modern mind when he said that "the man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts." [5] It is precisely this incongruity which remains unaccounted for today. This incongruity was raised to heights both humorous and sublime by noted Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, writing an essay for the Atlantic Monthly called "The Biological Basis of Morality." In it, Wilson outlines the argument for his suspicion that morals, ethics, and belief in the supernatural can all be written off to purely materially-originating, evolutionary-guided brain circuitry, and that's that. In the light of this, he suggests in his conclusion that evolutionary history be "retold as poetry, " because it is more intrinsically grand than any religious epic.[6] But if moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in motion, where does that leave appreciation for poetry? And seeing that poetry has a definite beginning and an end, as well as an author and a purpose, isn't the evolutionary epic the very last thing that could be told as poetry? Besides, who could possibly come up with a rhyme for lepidoptera? If life is a drama, then it needs a Bard; and we need to learn to acknowledge our cosmic Bard, just like Alonso in the final act of The Tempest:
This is as strange a maze as e'er men trod,
And there is in this business more than nature
Was ever conduct of. Some oracle
Must rectify our knowledge.
1. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes," Time Magazine 154 no. 8, August 13, 1999.
2. Theodore Schick, Jr., "When Humanists Meet E.T.," Free Inquiry 20 no.3, Summer 2000, pp. 36-7.
3. Robert Wright, "The Accidental Creationist," The New Yorker, Dec. 30,
1999, pp. 56-65.
4. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science, (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2000, p. 97).
5. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (NY: Image Books, 1990, pp 41-2).
6. E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," The Atlantic Monthly 281 no. 4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.
I very much doubt that you've ruled out all natural causes of consciousness. In my definition [Consciousness is that condition which arises from the brain's capacity to be aware of its own activity] consciousness is -- in effect -- the brain's functioning as a sensory organ, sensing its own activity. Not much more miraculous than eyesight. Even if that doesn't satisfy you, as it apparently doesn't, I leave you with this: An unsolved problem (such as the nature of consciousness) is not proof that a deity has been at work. It's just an unsolved problem. You can't logically say: "We don't understand X; therefore we do know Y."
And how would one go about establishing this alleged "rule"? And, assuming that were even possible, how does it apply to evolution? The "cause" of human brainpower is not simply our ancestors' brainposer, it's also the environment that selected out the inferior models.
There was neither an actuality nor a potential for self-awareness in any of those particles.
Again, you need to demonstrate this.
Those dots do not connect. Materially speaking, as long as the building blocks of the cosmos are mindless, unconscious atoms, then piling on block after block only gives you more mindless, unconscious atoms, but it categorically cannot give you consciousness.
And this:
There is nothing in natural evolution – neither the relatively slow process of gradual variation, nor the unpredictable, Quantum Mechanics-style process of change, that can account for consciousness, because in every case, the causal agents are simply more mindless, unconscious atoms, and as a result, the only possible effect is more mindlessness and unconsciousness.
Only possible? Please show your work.
Even if the increased ability to throw or communicate (or whatever led to our increase in brain size and function) has a selective advantage?
The effect does not follow from the cause, plain and simple. It is not possible.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself. *Why* isn't it possible? It certainly seems to have happened.
1. You could bash Descartes, which is easy to do, but the principle remains.
I really don't see why. The "principle" flies in the face of evolution. The fossil record shows a generally-incresing complexity of animals as we go from the preCambrian to the present. It seems highly likely that there was also a general increase in the complexity of nervous systems as well.
Also, "an effect cannot have a reality which is greater than its cause or causes; " seems very sloppy to me - how is "greater" defined? How are "cause" and "effect" defined? Are mammals "greater" than reptiles? are they "greater" than reptiles plus the environment?
2. You may choose to deny that there is such a thing as consciousness, although you did already agree to it in principle, and I would hate to think that I have been having a discussion with an unconscious automaton.
Quite absurd
3. You could beg to define “consciousness” to mean that it is merely a perception of ours
It's something I perceive in myself, and I infer that other people have a similar perception (unless they're retarded, insane, tripping on drugs, etc), and to a lesser extent, in animals
...and that we really are sophisticated machines, unwittingly responding to unknown stimuli. But this is the kind of thing I wrote about in my Infidels article – you would be appealing to reason in order to prove that there was really no such thing as reason. It would be a contradiction of your entire argument.
This is not true. The appeal is to observation. How is it an attempt to prove there is no reason?
The only logical explanation for the existence of consciousness in the universe is that it was put there by a conscious being.
No, evolution seems like a much more reasonable explanation.
The naturalist hypothesis for the existence human consciousness is dead before it leaves the starting gate,
Maybe, once you show that that the "rule" that Descartes allegedly came up with actually applies to the natural world. Since evolution violates it, and evolution is a very well-attested theory, it seems likely that Descartes was in fact wrong about this. The fact that it's stated in such imprecise terms makes it sound more like theology than science.
You might want to learn something from someone who is actually researching the origins of consciousness: Calvin's "throwing madonna" theory
Major problem here. Any fossil record is compatible with creation. Only one fossil record -- the one we find -- is compatible with evolution. Big difference. That's why we say that evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is not.
When VadeRetro says evolution "seems" to have happened - what is it that makes that statement scientific, but if I say it "seems" to me that it didn't, I am fool who has not done my work?
Frankly ... yes. And to remove any possible bias regarding evolution, I'll use an example from another science (criminology) which also "reconstructs" (attempts to explain) past events by examining evidence. The reasoning process for each science is the same -- you look at all the available clues, examine them with the best technology possible, and then put together a plausable, comprehensible, cause-and-effect scenario (a theory) for what happened in order to leave such clues for us to observe. Consider:
When we look at the evidence and say that OJ seems to have killed Nichole, that is a scientific statement. If you look at the same evidence and say it "seems" to you that he didn't, then yes ... using your words, you are a fool who has not done his work.
Dismissing God is an option, but it is not a scientific one. People's philosphies and experiences are what direct and shape the way that they perceive the data, connect the dots, and come to conclusions.
Science is limited to dealing with observable phenomena. "Dismissing God" is therefore most definitely a scientific option, where: (1) the proponents of this deity have no verifiable evidence; and (2) there is no conceivable way to test such an option. (Recall, in this context, that I pointed out how creationism fits any fossil record.) Yes, people's unique lives will shape their conclusions. That's why some people are better at this kind of thing than others. Rational conclusions can be tested. If someone's experiences and philosophy cause him to connect the dots and come up with something he calls a conclusion (the Martians killed Nichole) which can't be tested, which has no evidence, etc., then yes, he's got his unique way of looking at things, but we are entirely justified in disregarding his views.
Is the wind blowing outside my window a result of the purely natural effects of atmosphere and climate or is there a God who is creating it? Either, or both - but looking at the data alone will not tell you.
Right. Because the "wind god" is invisible, can't be tested, never reveals himself, etc. The Greeks believed that every tree had a nymph, every brook a naiad. In your way of thinking (if I read you wrong, please correct me, but I'm using your words) the data alone will not tell you. So where does that leave you? Do you regard nymphs and naiads to be scientific possibilities? For me, until I see verifiable evidence of a nymph or a naiad, I shall disegard them.
Descarte's obscure claim can apparently be used to prove that a zygote cannot become a human. However, that would be wrong. At any rate, as Virginia-American has pointed out, Causal Reality is not exactly a law of physics. It's vaguely worded, unquantifiable, and--to the extent that you can tease a real-world prediction out of it--wrong. Real science is not lawyering. It seeks to increase rather than obscure the sum of our knowledge.
While digging for arcane nuggets to lawyer upon, you seemed to have missed a genuinely wonderful rule of thumb called Occam's Razor. Now, it's not a law of physics either, but it's very useful for deciding what's a reasonable inference and what isn't. Science in fact uses it all the time. You'll find it invoked when there's a disagreement about the interpretation of hard data.
The standard explanation of this is "Do not unnecessarily multiply conjecture." However, when people say "What looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck is probably a duck," that's Occam's Razor too. It's silly to conjecture that what looks like a duck is a perfectly executed robot or puppet if there's not a shred of evidence for it being anything but a real duck. Things are mostly what they look like. It can turn out that things are not what they initially look like, but that's not the way to bet or the most reasonable inference. This is especially so if things have been looking a certain way for a long time under detailed examination.
As I've outlined, all the historical trace evidence points to a gradual progression in the development of the traits we associate with humanity. That's what it looks like, so that's probably what it was, never mind that nothing is ever rock-solid proven in science.
A flood of 50 unique body plans in extremely brief period of time is pretty incredible and hand waving cannot make it go away. You could try though it would be a little like a defense attorney saying: “There may be a mound of evidence that shows my client to be guilty but in regard to the black naturalist glove of gradualism, if it doesn’t fit you must acquit.”
Though Gould’s prosecution of gradualism in defense of his client ‘punk-eek’ wasn’t a very good either. It was basically the prosecuting attorney saying, "We have no evidence that this person committed this crime, but I can give reasons why the evidence disappeared. Now, find this person guilty."
Anyway, enough about the Homo-Simpsian case…
What don't you understand about the links I gave you in #247? In particular, your parallel-line graph alleges that every related thing appears suddenly and runs unbroken to now or to some extinction event but the Morton article--which you betray no sign of having ever read--shows that there are evolutionary precursors to the Cambrian phyla. I have also linked the following before:
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record, which specifically addresses the dishonesty of parallel-line charts and other lawyerings on taxonomy which are the soul of creation science.
I could go on but the fact is I really resent having to do this over and over and over with you on every thread because you supposedly can't remember the any of the other dozen times. If your God is a real God and the creator of the universe He should, if he needs you for anything, be telling you to straighten up and try being honest about what you understand and what you remember.
Not to mention you're still lying about Gould. We've really been there and done this and you haven't had the goods yet.
Cambrian. It happened. Deal with it….
Post your timeline and I will post my graphs.
Again, deal with it…
You are a conscious individual and if the natural law that governs your thoughts and life (name it what you will) is a just (relatively speaking) god, maybe it can explain why this happened…
Does the controlling naturalistic god of your being allow for the ignoring of empirical data? Does your mindless god (insert naturalististic name here – RM&NS, chaos, etc… ) allow you to be condescending and tired of trying?
OK…Fine… Lets say that a law of nature alone allowed consciousness, what would you like to name this force that governs you? You have ruled out an intelligent agent and scientists name; laws, rules, theories, all the time – so what natural force would you like to name this governing source and attribute to your self-evident conscious being? Is it self-evident? Would you pick: nymph, RM&NS, wind god, Might makes right, The end justifies the means, Survival of the fittest, naiad, We don't understand X; therefore we do know Y, or It’s all relative, whatever and etc…?
No, go ahead and name the governing force that dictates your thoughts in a naturalistic mechanistic manner and ultimately controls you– I want to know so I can ridicule this god that controls you as you do others… It’s no fair to use the name science or observable data because this comes from… CONSCIOUSNESS! (Oh, I apologize for the perceived yelling that my cap letters my have caused to your conscious being)
Vade… Ultimately, I will never know that I am wrong and you will never know that you are right. (You can ponder that after you name the natural/genetic force that caused you to ponder).
Dealt with it. Try reading it. Try not turning every goddam thread into the last one you were on. Try remembering a little for once. Try just being honest with yourself, the first step in being honest with others.
Lets say that a law of nature alone allowed consciousness, what would you like to name this force that governs you?
Call it the real world, a place with a marked absence of oogedy-boogedy-abracadabra-shazam going on.
Now, wipe the white foam from your lip a read my post again. (If you are actually conscious)
Is he evil because of this?
Darwin published Origin in 1859, before most of the fossil record we have now was known. There was not a single Precambrian fossil known in his day. Not one. This you cite as a justification for your behavior now.
Most modern scientists would now say that Darwin's prediction of Precambrian fossils has been fulfilled, another instance where he was right and his scoffers were wrong. Here's one such acknowledgment:
When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he and most paleontologists believed that the oldest animal fossils were the trilobites and brushwood's of the Cambrian Period, now known to be about 540 million years old. Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils. A few believed that the Cambrian fossils represented the moment of God's creation of animals, or the first deposits laid down by the biblical Flood. Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."The Vendian.Since Darwin's time, the fossil history of life on Earth has been pushed back to 3.5 billion years before the present. Most of these fossils are microscopic bacteria and algae. However, in the latest Proterozoic - a time period now called the Vendian, or the Ediacaran, and lasting from about 650 to 540 million years ago - macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations.
A classic case of misleading with a real (but really really really really out-of-date) quote. "Darwin acknowledged the Cambrian was a problem ..." (so it must still be one). More creation science! Thank you for the lesson.
Virtually all the transitional forms listed in this post were unknown in Darwin's day also. For someone so often alleged to be a charlatan, he seems to have done amazingly well. Shame he doesn't get enough credit for 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.