Posted on 09/07/2009 10:41:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In my last post I commented on Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner’s article “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” in which Wigner describes as “miraculous” (1) that “laws” of nature exist; and (2) that we should be able to discover those laws.
In this post I will use an exchange in the comment section of that post between ID proponent “StephenB” and Darwinist “Delurker” to illustrate the utter vacuity of Darwinist argumentation...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Ping!
utter nonsense. Pointless and scientifically worthless.
Wow, how scientific of you. LOL!
He misrepresents the Darwinists’ arguments right from the get-go. Easier to make fun of them that way, I guess.
Ok, what’s the Darwinist explanation for minds that can comprehend and describe reality with mathematics?
I had hoped there would be something of substance in your article. It was just a 3rd party sniping of two others conversation. Why did the author truncate the posts and not include them in their entirety? All in all - not really a discussion of evolution - it was a philosophical debate. Neither side presented any evidence just made statements of what others are ‘working on.’
Hey GGG. you see the Drudge linked piece on the ‘land of the lost’ species discoveries in New Guinnea?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/07/discovery-species-papua-new-guinea
Mega rats and fanged frogs... now that’s just cool. :)
what was ‘misrepresented’?
Weak strawman from the start.
2/10
Mr. GGG, your posts are fascinating. I’m reminded of an exchange a few days back where you reminded us that most of the time when a poster says that they have read an article, they actually have not. A few years ago I noticed that, rather than respond directly, many posters simply offer a glib reply intended to pull a discussion off message.
Thanks for reminding us.
I’m not a fan, however, of your “they ain’t really Christians” postings. Stay on topic and leave it to the reader to decide who is and who ain’t.
Leo
Thanks for your reply. My list is full of Christians who disagree with me re: origins, and yet I am fully convinced that they are Christians. The ones I call onto the carpet are those who claim to be Christians and deny Jesus Christ in the same breath, all the while claiming that the genuine Christians (who confess Christ) are harming Christianity by having the audacity to believe God’s Word.
I checked out your link. Interesting stuff! As for the post, if the evo side of the exchange is not representative, it should be easy enough to point out why the Darwinist is wrong and Darwinism is right?
So, a commentary on an arguement between some anonomous Internet posting proves something?
Lol
That question touches on two separate issues: first, why is reality describable with mathematics; and second, why do humans have minds that can do so? The first has nothing to do with evolution. Presumably the same mathematics worked before we were here, whether that was millions of years ago or during the first five days of creation.
For the second question, I can't improve on the quoted Darwinist's answer: "That’s an interesting question. Biologists investigating the evolution of the human brain are attempting to answer it."
Where Arrington goes wrong is in pretending the Darwinist is addressing the first issue when in fact he's addressing the second. The IDer asks, "How did nature become comprehensible?” and the Darwinist answers, "That is not a question that is addressed by modern evolutionary theory." Arrington then goes on as if the Darwinist said evolution doesn't attempt to learn how people developed minds, when it's obvious that he's talking about why nature conforms to discernible rules. It's misleading, and I suspect it was done on purpose.
As a more general point, I suggest you examine the arguments in the articles you post more carefully. It seems sometimes that people on your side accept any argument as valid so long as it leads to the "right" conclusion. That leads them, and you, to post a lot of very flawed reasoning. My impression is that you have some decent critical thinking skills, and you might want to consider applying them to the arguments of people that agree with you. You'd probably post fewer items, but they'd be stronger on the whole.
See the third paragraph of my response to GGG, #14.
As I've said before, if the logic of Evolution dictated that we where descended from cats, clean, pretty cats that smell good and have nice ways, then there would be far less objection to this idea. But since we're descended from ugly, smelly apes that scratch themselves and masturbate in public, this bothers some people. There are numerous scientific theories that conflict with the Bible but don't draw a peep, but this one really gets people's goat.
I would also like to say that labeling Darwin's theory as "Darwinism" is a tactic designed to make the theory out to be some kind of evil ideology like communism. It's not an ideology any more than the Pythagorean Theorem is an ideology. It's science, and it stands or falls on its own merit and has no moral imperative built into it whatsoever, except for what has been imputed to it by those with a theological ax to grind.
If you want to attack the Theory of Evolution because it conflicts with religion, maybe you should also try to prove the Book of Genesis with science. Neither one is possible. When you can prove scientifically that Adam was created from mud and Eve from his rib, then I'll sit up and take notice.
Why not just stand up and say "I disagree with the Theory of Evolution because it's against the Bible" and spare us all the phony baloney? That would at least be intellectually honest.
Thanks for the ping!
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Thus the earth is flat.
Sometimes admitting that one has no explanation is better than making a poor one up.
That presupposes that religious people are intellectually bankrupt and nonintellectual. And that there is no arguing the point. But the question of how the mind was developed or designed is of the highest interest in any intellectual circles.
My interest is in computer approximations of the brain. And it is quite obvious that the human mind is vastly superior to any computer, even after years of increasing computer speed, multiprocessing and an explosion of memory capabilities. Surely if the mind were simple, we would have reproduced it's capabilities, but we have not even begun to scratch the surface.
Your argument that religious people should have no input screams against folks like Newton, Einstein and many many others who made major contributions in the areas upon which we stand.
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.