Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I have no problem with the religious who honestly consider ID as a hypothesis.

...Like I said, I'm willing to let ID survive or die on its own scientific merits.

Then you have no problem with me.

ID starts with the presupposition that the supernatural exists.

If the intelligent design hypothesis started with any presupposition, then I would not be attracted to it. But it simply says: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Neither "natural" nor "supernatural" are raised in the hypothesis.

IOW, "intelligent cause" includes both phenomenon (intelligence as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity and fractal intelligence) as well as agency (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.)

If the selection of mates is found to be the best explanation for certain features in life, then the hypothesis is vindicated.

No doubt some who are counting on the "intelligent cause" being an agency would be disappointed, but that is all the hypothesis says. It is what it is.

[betty boop]

The most obvious "cut" is whether one sees the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or whether one sees it as an either/or. The majority of Christians, including virtually all Catholics, see the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or transcedent, i.e. God created "all that there is" both spiritual and physical and He alone is transcedent (and yet immanent).... And then there are those on this forum who see "natural" and "supernatural" as mutually exclusive -- the more science discovers natural causation, the less the supernatural can “be”. This false dichotomy leads to much of the crevo warfare around here, IMHO.

I applaud your astute analysis, Alam-Girl; and support the conclusion you draw: "when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused -- but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself. "

Indeed, there is no either/or issue involved here. This is a point, however, that apparently is difficult for "physicalists" (or naturalists or materialists -- however a person prefers to be termed in the matter) to grasp. But it is THE point.

Thanks so much for your excellent essay/post, A-G!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your affirmation and encouragements!!!

Indeed, there is no either/or issue involved here. This is a point, however, that apparently is difficult for "physicalists" (or naturalists or materialists -- however a person prefers to be termed in the matter) to grasp. But it is THE point.

So very true. Perhaps if we keep at this long enough we'll find a way to make it clear?

[hosepipe]

[ I applaud your astute analysis, Alamo-Girl; and support the conclusion you draw: "when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused -- but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself. " ]

Me too.. language(whatever dialect) can divide us more than bring us together.. but brought together only until the next "issue" comes up..

Gee, I sure will be glad when human language becomes obsolete.. and we can KNOW whats in each others spirit.. Dialects within dialects within dialects are hard to keep up with.. Even when on the same page we might be in different BOOKS.. But I get ahead of myself.. There I've done it again..

[betty boop]

Perhaps if we keep at this long enough we'll find a way to make it clear?

I dunno, A-G. In certain cases, that might be impossible. :^)

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

So what? Human existence has a physical basis. But that physical basis does not and cannot account for the very real, observable differences between two human beings.

The chemicals cannot tell you that Mother Theresa all her life served Life; and that Marx, a self-described atheist, didn't have very much to say about Life at all. But every time his dogma was tried -- and there have been many attempts to instantiate it in various forms -- human beings died by the millions, and the planet was otherwise laid waste.

The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality.

And yet we see their products. I have particularly in mind the work of Steven Pinker, Richard Lewontin, and Peter Singer. But I'm sure the list could be extended. But yoyu get my drift.

Thanks so much for your wonderful essays today, dear A-G!

[Right Wing Professor]

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

This has been rebutted so many times by so many people I can think of no intellectually honest reason for you to reassert it.

[js1138]

This has been rebutted so many times by so many people I can think of no intellectually honest reason for you to reassert it.

I think you answered your own implied question.

Not to rub it in, but the appeal to consequences is such an obvious fallacy that one wonders how a person who has pretenses to philosophy would even consider using it.

[cornelis]

not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else

That's beautiful.

[cornelis]

The chemicals cannot tell you

What an amazing thing that from milk, consistently, there grows a baby with blood, and tears, and voice, and sight!

But you're right, those fossil stamps, they really are terribly mute about the outer and the inner beauties of this world. When a science thinks that the historian lives in another world, then science has become too big.

[hosepipe]

[ The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality. ]

Sounds like a pretty rational diagnosis to me..

Could the human mind could be like a car engine.. Timed correctly the engine runs at peak efficiency.. but when the timing is off plus or minus top dead center.. it backfires.. or starts hard.. or has less power.. and other things..

Some car owners have owned "refuseniks".. The car is just not healthy.. If the human person is just mechanical (as some you quoted suggest) it could be a self-fulling prophesy.. denying the very thing that makes them human, their spirit.. The human spirit is Super-DNA or beyond DNA or even RNA.. even as God is SuperNatural..

Does that make sense?.. I know what I mean.. d;-)

[hosepipe]

[ What an amazing thing that from milk, consistently, there grows a baby with blood, and tears, and voice, and sight! ]

From a person of few words.. cornelis, you say a lot..

[bondserv]

As for myself, I'd prefer to stay and fight and NOT let these moronic/ignorant/clowns take over this valuable website.

You've got a tough row to hoe. A majority of republicans believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe.

Gospel of John Chapter 1 verse 3
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus also said (red letters indicate words of Christ):

Gospel of Mark Chapter 10 verse 6
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[Right Wing Professor]

Not to rub it in, but the appeal to consequences is such an obvious fallacy that one wonders how a person who has pretenses to philosophy would even consider using it.

Also the fallacy of composition. Nobody contests that a pound of iron and a pound or air are both made up of almost the same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and controlled by precisely the same forces. Still, the effects of a pound of air and a pound of iron travelling at 50 m.p.h. towards one's head are quite different. People who advance the fallacy of composition maybe need to explore the difference in a more convincing way.

[js1138]

So what do you suppose a dime's worth of Karl Marx or a dime's worth of Mother Theresa would get you, in grams?

[Right Wing Professor]

So what do you suppose a dime's worth of Karl Marx or a dime's worth of Mother Theresa would get you, in grams?

It might be an interesting auction, given that both seem to be associated with movements that place a high value on relics.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements! I, too, look forward to the point when language is obsolete.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent essay-post!

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

I see your remarks have met with the predictable disdain - which indicates to me the correspondents reject self-organizing complexity among other things. That is bizarre on the face since self-organizing complexity is a widely accepted model.

In that model the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, new features emerge (such as intelligence in biological life) such that new language is necessary to describe the whole. The same can be said of things made, new language is necessary to describe the thing.

For example, Mother Theresa is greater than the sum of the biochemicals which made up her body much like an automobile is greater than the sum of the parts of which it was made, etc.

Moreover, in the case of Mother Theresa - or the automobile, a particular snowflake or hurricane or whatever - the sum of her "worldline" or consciousness or soul or spirit accrue to her autonomous being as compared to other autonomous biological beings made of the same biochemicals. Likewise a particular car is a unique autonomous entity on its worldline compared to other cars, even of the same make and model, etc.

And yet it is asserted that your point has been "debunked" and you stand accused of "dishonesty". How sad.

Perhaps we should once again research the concepts and models of autonomy, complexity, semiosis, information (successful communication) and intelligence in biological life?

[hosepipe]

[ Thank you so very much for your encouragements! I, too, look forward to the point when language is obsolete. ]

Quite a new and obscure concept, language being obsolete.. Heres to a future prospective project to make this not an obscure or iconoclastic concept.. Cause its it has legggggs. Maybe Boopie will be enticed.. Boopie is not only cute but very competent.. d;-)

Pipe

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Indeed, betty boop is exceedingly competent and precious!

[hosepipe]

[ Moreover, in the case of Mother Theresa - or the automobile, a particular snowflake or hurricane or whatever - the sum of her "worldline" or consciousness or soul or spirit accrue to her autonomous being as compared to other autonomous biological beings made of the same biochemicals. Likewise a particular car is a unique autonomous entity on its worldline compared to other cars, even of the same make and model, etc. ]

Wow.. you're on a roll girl.. heavy stuff.. Your spirit is quite ugh!.. infinite..