Prove Evolution: Win $250,000!

Creation Science Evangelism ^ | N/A | Dr. Ken Hovind

[handk]

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
formerly $10,000, offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*  My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

 

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

 

My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

[inquest]

What I gave you was not an appeal to emotion.

Aw, come on now -

Yeah, I knew after I posted it that that statement probably would have gone over like a lead balloon. I should explain just a bit further. Usually when someone talks about an "appeal to emotion", it's in reference to a specific emotion, and it's usually designed to prevent further inquiry into a particular subject. What I was talking about was the summit and source of all emotion and when it comes right down to it, all everything. And making that the focal point can hardly prevent further inquiry, because there is no further inquiry to prevent.

And ultimately, emotions are our only tool for dealing with the world around us. Even appeals to logic are, at base, appeals to emotion, because it elicits a certain emotional response when things add up the way they're supposed to; much the same way that two musical notes in harmony have one emotional effect, whereas discordant tones have quite another.

They [the totalitarian murderers] surely would have claimed it was rational, to be sure. But you notice that they never actually put that argument out there in the public sphere for people to consider. No matter how rational they might have thought their position to be, they never put those "reasoned" arguments on display, preferring instead the nastiest sorts of appeal to emotion.

Well, of course. They "reasoned" that people wouldn't understand, so they instead went with what they felt would have obtained the outcome they desired. Now you can say that they nonetheless should have tried to reason with their subjects, but of course by saying that, you're already imposing an arbitrary morality that you apparently have an significant amount of faith in.

If you want to blame failures of logic and reason for the Holocaust...

Here you're projecting your opinions onto me. You say that it was a failure of logic and reason, but that's certainly not what I was saying. My point was that it could very well have been a result of sound logic, but logic not based on the proper axioms - chief amomg them, the right to life.

Way back in post #601, I said in passing to Diamond that the ends cannot be used to justify the means. That's as much a rational judgement as it is a moral one, I think.

It's certainly a moral judgement, but I fail to see how it can be a purely rational one. How is it any less "rational" to say that the ends do indeed justify the means?

[BMCDA]

Yes. That's exactly it, with the additional proviso that I mentioned in 244; that to the extent that skepticism about the existence of God is a positive claim or characterization about the external world (specifically an allegation of a lack of sufficient evidence for His existence), and not merely an expression of personal doubt, then it should be able to be be justified.

Well, as far as I know skepticism towards a certain claim is not a positive statement.
You are skeptical towards a claim because you're not convinced that this claim is true. However, this doesn't mean that it must be false; it could be true after all but you don't have enough evidence that suggests its truthfulness. And as long as this is the case you are not convinced i.e you are skeptical towards this claim.

If God exists, and has revealed enough of Himself in space/time history, and in verbal, propositional form to hold us accountable, then skepticism about His existence is obviously not the properly basic default position. Such a position in the face of God would be unreasonable and irrational.

If this god had revealed himself enough to me then I'd believe in his existence. But the evidence I've been presented so far does not convince me. The evidence that convinces you of a certain claim is not necessarily enough for me and vice versa. So as long as I can find an alternative explanation to an argument that is made in favor of a god, this argument is not convincing me of his existence. It may be different in your case and you may be convinced by certain facts which are accredited to your god even if they can have other explanations which don't require a god.

No, our opinions would then (or should be) regulated by what He has revealed of Himself Who by definition cannot be a crackpot.

And Santa isn't a crackpot either by definition. So what?

Yes, that is true. But it is also true that because you are not omniscient you also do not know enough to be certain of your doubt.

Then, please tell me, what should be my position? When is doubting OK? (and please remember that I'm not convinced of the claim that your or any other god exists)

That is the paradoxical dilemma. I am assuming for the sake of argument that your doubt constitutes an objection to the existence of God, and not merely an expression of personal doubt. An objection entails a positive claim about the extent of evidence (or lack of) in the external world regarding God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, the external world, and personal, internal experience of God.

Once again, I never said that a god must or must not exist. A god may or may not exist and so far I'm not conviced that any gods exist. But this is true for every claim that is stated in a non-falsifiable way: it may be true but of course it also may not be true and I'm sure that you as well doubt such a claim as long as you don't have any evidence that is convincing to you.
So I doubt because I am not sure. If I were shure the one way or the other, I wouldn't doubt.

[Gumlegs]

One other thing I want to point out (in case we get bored). You said, "There's no information loss in rearranging my books anyway." Well, not to you, because you already know the English alphabet. But to someone who's never been exposed to it, you've destroyed quite a bit of information by rearranging your books out of alphabetical order. I have no idea what that has to do with what we're talking about, but I just thought I'd bring it up.

The devil made you post this!

666 posted on 5/13/02 3:22 PM Eastern by inquest

[inquest]

If that's the worst he can do to me, I guess I'm doing OK.

[handk]

susan collins (R) Maine, could have only evolved from pond scum and sewer setament. Now, give me the money!

"Setament"?

It's spelled "sediment"; you dumbed down, evolution believing, brainwashed moron!

PS: I'm not offering the reward, idiot. Reread the article. Oops! You didn't learn reading comprehesion either.

[betty boop]

Hi general_re! I’m back, having studied your last. You asked me to try to “reexplain” that last two or so paragraphs. I’ll see what I can do; maybe I can think of an analogy that might shed some light on the remaining obscurities of simple language. For now, let me try something a little different – I’d like to quote some passages from a great thinker, Eric Voegelin, in which he provides an analysis of what he calls “doctrinaire existence,” as it relates to the observation: “The experience [of God] is an illusion.”

First, he observes that the statement “the experience is an illusion” is a “piece of loose thinking, quite common in everyday speech. Speaking carefully, one would have to say that an experience is never an illusion but always a reality; the predicate illusion should be used with reference, not to the experience, but to its content, in case it has illusionary character.”

“Skipping” ahead, he explains that the “doctrinaire thinker” will tend to conflate someone else’s actual experience with his own characterization of illusionary content, and thus, the experience is delegitimated. That is, in the present case, notwithstanding some one declares he’s had an “experience” of God, God is – according to our our doxic thinker --an illusion. Thus God is unilaterally banished from the realms of reasons and discourse, not to mention the universe at large, and the person who had the experience of Him is labeled a nutcase.

Voegelin continues:

“Doctrinaire existence affects the operations of the mind…. We must take note of the two principal deformations that have become visible in our analysis:

“1. Truth experienced can be excluded from the horizon of reality [i.e., what we see of reality] but not from reality itself. When it is excluded from the universe of intellectual discourse, its presence in reality makes itself felt in the disturbance of mental operations. In order to save the appearances of reason, the doctrinaire must resort…to such irrational means as leaving premises inarticulate, as the refusal to discuss them, or the invention of devices to obscure them, and the use of fallacies. He does no longer move in the realm of reason but has descended to the underworld of opinion, in Plato’s technical sense of doxa. Mental operations in the subfield, thus, are characterized by the doxic as distinguished from the rational mode of thought.

“2. A critical study of history, based on empirical knowledge of phenomena, is impossible, when a whole class of phenomena is denied cognizance. Since the appearances of empirical knowledge, as well as of critical science, must be saved just as much as the appearances of reason, a considerable apparatus of devices has been developed for the purpose of covering the defect. Such devices I shall call doxic methodology; the resulting type of science, doxic empiricism. The problem is set by the constructions of history to which our analysis had to advert: they draw their strength from their opposition, not to faith and philosophy, but to late doctrinal forms of theology and metaphysics; and they remain themselves on the very top level of doctrine whose specific phenomena they oppose. The persuasive trick of carving history into ascending phases or states of consciousness, for the purpose of placing the carver’s consciousness at the top of the ladder, can be performed only under the assumption that man’s consciousness is world-immanent and nothing but that; the fact that man is capable of apprehending… The point of intersection of the timeless/With time … as well as the symbolisms expressing such apprehension must be ignored. The field of historical reality, furthermore, has to be identified and defined as a field of doctrine; and since the great events of participation [e.g., experiences of divine reality] do not disappear from reality, they must be flattened and crushed until nothing but a rubble of doctrine is left.”

Here’s a case study of this phenomenon: “Especially Plato had to go through the oddest deformations to make him fit the doctrinaire fashions of the moment. During the last one hundred years, selections from his disjecta membra were used to let him appear as a Socialist, a Utopian, a Fascist, and an authoritarian thinker. For its legitimation, the butchery performed by ideologists on history requires the covering devices which go under the name of methods – be they of the psychological or materialist, the scientistic or historicist, the positivist or behaviorist, the value-free or rigorous-method varieties….”

Enuf – this stuff goes down pretty hard. Let me just say that you, general_re, have said you fear I do not believe in the theory of evolution. That’s both true and false – I “believe” in microevolution, which I think has been amply demonstrated empirically; I do not, however, “believe” in macroevolution, because it hasn’t. The latter, indeed, has the form of “doxic methodology” ineluctably giving rise to “doxic empiricism.”

And I have to leave it there for now. Hope to be speaking with you again soon. Best wishes, bb.

p.s.: To inquest -- you seemed to like Voegelin once; thought maybe you'd like him twice! He certain supports some of your own insights here.

[Diamond]

Regarding Eichmann's use of deception as dysfuntion:

I grabbed the following as a brief description of animal use of deception from an Discover article by MARC HAUSER:
"All of us (humans) understand what it is like to distort the truth. We have the mental tools not only to think about our own beliefs but also to recognize what others are likely to believe, and maneuver in such a way that we can, if we are devious enough, alter the beliefs of our friends and enemies. This capacity derives from our social brain and its exquisite mental circuitry. When that circuitry is damaged, the effects can be devastating psychological problems. Patients with autism, for example, often experience a form of "mindblindness," an inability to read from behavior what others feel, want, and believe".

"Are normal human adults unique in their capacity to read others' minds? Are we the only animals that can lie? To be honest, we don't yet know--but given the battle to survive and reproduce, we should not be surprised to discover that through natural selection other animals have evolved strategies to dupe opponents and reap the rewards of competitive struggle. [emphasis mine] The challenge faced by researchers interested in the question of non-human deception is to distinguish between the con artists and the true masters, between those who look as if they are aware of how the process works and those who really do know."

"...Nature leaves us with a wonderful puzzle. Animals of all kinds deceive. Predatory fireflies lure prey by mimicking their mating signals; molting (and thus defenseless) mantis shrimp bluff intruders with aggressive displays; female plovers feign injury to draw predators away from their young. But during the course of evolution, some organisms acquired an understanding that they are deceiving. This event represented a renaissance in thinking, an awakening of mind. It allowed not only for true Machiavellian deception but also for self-reflection, an understanding of mortality, and an appreciation for how and why belief systems diverge and converge. We humans are unquestionably part of this renaissance. But we have yet to determine when or how it started--or why" (Hauser 2000)."

I'm probably sounding like a skipping CD at this point, but we certainly don't think that animals, who at least act as if they have a desire to live, are morally responsible for deceiving and killing one another. The article describes the understanding and manipulation of deception, not as dysfuntion, but as a "renaissance in thinking", an "awakening of the mind" that occured through natural selection as animals evolved strategies to dupe opponents and reap the rewards of competitive struggle. What rationale can be given as to why should we not also regard Eichmann's cunning use of deception as also just a product of that evolutionary struggle? (What else could Eichmann be, other than a product of the evolutionary struggle?) In other words, I don't see how, even given a preference for life as compelling, which even animals seem to possess, an evolutionary base principle leads to the conclusion that Eichmann's use of deception is dysfunctional and 'wrong' by definition, a definition I happen to agree with, btw.

Cordially,

[general_re]

And ultimately, emotions are our only tool for dealing with the world around us. Even appeals to logic are, at base, appeals to emotion, because it elicits a certain emotional response when things add up the way they're supposed to; much the same way that two musical notes in harmony have one emotional effect, whereas discordant tones have quite another.

Oh, no, I have to disagree here. Consider a specific sort of logic and reason - the study of mathematics. We don't study math because it makes us feel good - ask any third grader how he feels about fractions ;)

It may be true that it engenders an emotional response in us, but that's not why we do it - we do it because the doing of it brings us practical benefits. Studying mathematics allows us to do good things, like build buildings, and make medicines, and all sorts of other things to make the world a better place. We do it because doing it gives us things we want - any emotional response to the doing of it is strictly a side-effect in most cases.

And so it is with the use of logic and reason in general. We don't appeal to logic because it makes us feel all shiny and happy when we do - we do it because the doing of it has benefits for us.

Well, of course. They "reasoned" that people wouldn't understand, so they instead went with what they felt would have obtained the outcome they desired. Now you can say that they nonetheless should have tried to reason with their subjects, but of course by saying that, you're already imposing an arbitrary morality that you apparently have an significant amount of faith in.

Well, of course I would say that - that is sort of the point of having laws based on reason, isn't it? That totalitarian-wannabes don't get to discard it any more than the rest of us do just because it interferes with their desired outcome.

It's rather difficult to try to apply this system in retrospect, and figure out what people would have or should have done in such a case. You want to try to construct a perverse case where the system I propose would break down - that's perfectly fair, and exactly what I would do in your position. But I can always step back a bit further and point out that, were such a system in place with the attendant axioms, such a perverse case might very well not have arisen in the first place.

Here you're projecting your opinions onto me. You say that it was a failure of logic and reason, but that's certainly not what I was saying. My point was that it could very well have been a result of sound logic, but logic not based on the proper axioms - chief amomg them, the right to life.

Well, I'm not really saying that you're saying this - at least, that's not how I intend it. But I can cast it as a failure to apply the principles of reason - saying that it might have been based on bad axioms only reinforces my statements that we would need to start by exploring which things we are to treat as rights, before just setting sail on the seas of logic. The axioms we base society on do matter, very much - I think we are not really disagreeing in that respect.

It's certainly a moral judgement, but I fail to see how it can be a purely rational one. How is it any less "rational" to say that the ends do indeed justify the means?

That's a matter of the axioms we put in place, as much as anything else. I think it's not indefensible to suggest that one principle might be that the means must be proportional to the ends. I could end pollution tomorrow by slaughtering all of mankind, but this solution is invalid because of a few axioms we might propose. It's not proportional, it's not the only way to accomplish the desired goal, it violates our axiom that a person's preference for life is paramount to someone else's desire to end it, and so forth. All this illustrates is that we need a set of axioms with which to begin - some first principles. After we decide what those things are, then we proceed from there.

I'm not trying to make a case that laws based on reason are entirely perfect, or that a society based on such such a thing would be infinitely superior to a society with laws based on morality - only that it is at least as good in all aspects, and that it carries one important advantage. It promotes the use of reasoned discourse as a way of changing things. The argument that "God says X is wrong, and God says that you have to listen to me" is out the window in such a society. Since such an argument can be used for ill at least as well as for good, and since it is often an excuse for me imposing my will on you, I tend to think that ruling this argument out of bounds is a good thing in and of itself. We give up claims of special authority on morality, and instead substitute arguments designed to persuade people of the rightness of a particular thing.

[general_re]

For now, let me try something a little different ? I?d like to quote some passages from a great thinker, Eric Voegelin...

Euuuurggghhhh. Must you?

The first thing one realizes when reading Voegelin is that, for the most part, he is simply incomprehensible. Your excerpt illustrates that quite well, I think. The second thing one realizes is that his notion of reason by revelation is simply an oxymoron, and no amount of hand-waving and resurrection of mile-long Greek words changes that. Really, if you want arguments in favor of natural law, you can do better than Voegelin, I think.

Nevertheless, while I am confident that I can pick Voegelin apart quite well, this is well-traveled ground. Liberal applications of the older works of J.S. Mill and the newer works of Robert Nozick might help to get the taste out of one's mouth. Further, I invite interested readers to examine what happens when Voegelin's "ideas" are challenged by traveling to one's preferred library or bookseller, and procuring a copy of Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964.

Thus God is unilaterally banished from the realms of reasons and discourse, not to mention the universe at large, and the person who had the experience of Him is labeled a nutcase.

Come now, Betty - I wasn't the one who declared God to be off-limits to reason and discourse. You are the one persistently trying to do so, and have been trying to do so from the very beginning. Is He off-limits or not?

Enuf ? this stuff goes down pretty hard.

Or not at all....

[betty boop]

The assertion that the universe is eternal, yet uncaused amazes me. That anything in this universe (life, in particular) evolved through blind forces of nature (or whatever else you might choose to call the supposedly random happenings involved) literally defies logic.

Really, joanie-f. You'd have thunk Aristotle had put this one to bed about 2500 years ago....

Thank you so much for writing, joanie-f -- an elegant, thoughtful piece and a pleasure to read. best, bb.

[general_re]

I'm probably sounding like a skipping CD at this point, but we certainly don't think that animals, who at least act as if they have a desire to live, are morally responsible for deceiving and killing one another. The article describes the understanding and manipulation of deception, not as dysfuntion, but as a "renaissance in thinking", an "awakening of the mind" that occured through natural selection as animals evolved strategies to dupe opponents and reap the rewards of competitive struggle. What rationale can be given as to why should we not also regard Eichmann's cunning use of deception as also just a product of that evolutionary struggle?

The question almost answers itself, really. Look back at that passage - in all those examples, who is being deceived? Are those examples of intra-species deception, or inter-species deception?

They're all examples of inter-species deception, of course. The firefly doesn't seek to deceive his own, but others, from outside the community. When faced with the "other" from outside the community, and survival is at stake, then deception is very much an appropriate and adaptive strategy. But when directed against one's own, and the members of one's own community or species, then it is dysfunctional if widely practiced.

Who you are deceiving, and why, does make some difference, I think you must agree. After all, you said almost as much, by noting that these were deceptions of "opponents" ;)

[Junior]

Chimpanzees have been known to deceive others in their group to keep choice treats for themselves...

[general_re]

Hadda bring that up, didn't you? ;)

I know, and those of us with siblings can probably remember occasions when we did the same as children. But I don't think that this changes the basic thrust of my argument that when such practices become widespread, it is dysfunctional. Even among chimps, deception of one's mates is limited to specific circumstances like this, and done occasionally, not as a matter of course. When it becomes the norm, and deception is constant and present in most or all aspects of daily interaction, then society breaks down, and the group suffers, along with all the individuals in it.

[Alas]

Handk, Sorry, that was the best I could do, since I am a firm Creationist. But, your offer was to good to not take a shot at, now lighten up willya?

[Motherhood IS a career]

It's spelled "sediment"; you dumbed down, evolution believing, brainwashed moron!

PS: I'm not offering the reward, idiot. Reread the article. Oops! You didn't learn reading comprehesion either.

LOL! How charming. This special skill you have with words...is this what you learned in church?

[joanie-f]

A belated reply to your #639 (been off-line for a few days).

I'm trying to stay with your train of thought, but you're losin' me.

What does the fact that a computer-generated fern never actually existed in nature have to do with the debate occurring on this thread?

Allow me to venture a guess as to the reason you saw fit to introduce the 'Barnsley Fern Theory to Debunk the Existence of God' :) (ISF fractals are beautiful, but, by bringing Barnsley into the argument, you have illustrated precisely the difficult tightrope that must be walked when delving into chaos theory mathematics. I'm afraid that too many high school and college students (and, apparently, FReerepublic posters) become enamored of the images (in a superficial ‘video game’ way) and miss out completely on the universal beauty of the mathematics behind them. Chaos theory has to be presented in just the right way, or its real and lasting significance will be lost.)

Are you suggesting that, because a (human-programmed) computer generated the non-existent (in nature) fern, that God's footprints, therefore, are not to be found in everything that exists in the universe? (i.e., man can 'create' outside of His influence?)

If the above guess is wrong, the remainder of this post is pretty much irrelevant (and, even if my guess is pretty much on the mark, my hunch is that you may even find it irrelevant anyway. Ah well....)

Let's say an acorn falls to the ground and then takes root, or is purposefully planted by a human hand, and a large oak tree results a hundred years (four human generations) later. That oak tree is then felled, and its wood used to make a group of beautiful oak tables. Because, a hundred years after the acorn took root, there is no visible sign of a 'connection' between that acorn and the beautiful tables, does that mean that the acorn either (1) never existed, or (2) had nothing to do with the creation of the beautiful furniture?

Because man's hand made the furniture (just as man's mind designed your fern), does that mean that God had nothing to do with either genesis? Both the oak tables and your 'virtual' fern were fashioned from earthly tools with which man has been provided.

The question is: who/what provided them? A chance/coincidental combination of random events occurring over an indeterminate amount of time, which just 'happened' to result in a universe which exhibits a degree of order and design which boggles the human mind, and only a pitiful fraction of which the human mind has yet to discover, let alone comprehend?

Also, your 1776 analogy falls short of the mark. Of course the odds of one being assigned a telephone number of 555-1776 are exactly the same as the odds of being assigned any other number (and I, like you, find it silly that some people attach significance to such random occurrences). BUT, when, in 'nature', the exact same entities (mathematical constants, geometric forms, behaviors predictable by algebraic/trigonometric functions, etc., etc.) seem to occur, time and time again, in such seemingly unrelated objects/occurrences (from the substance and motion of sub-atomic particles, to the substance and motion of the largest known bodies in the universe), these amazing 'connections' cannot possibly be explained by use of the term 'coincidence.' When one finds a figurative 1776 in innumerable (otherwise seemingly unrelated) places, the words significance/design/order/intelligence are far more compelling than chance.

In all of those discoveries or inventions which have most 'changed' man's existence over the past, say, century (among them the telephone, the computer, the assembly line, the atomic bomb, aircraft, plastic, guided rocketry and television), if one looks into the 'seed' which began the development of each, one would be hard pressed not to find dozens (hundreds?) of similarities (mathematical, physics-related, chemical....) in their development -- innumerable similar 'natural' phenomena/properties which, when harnessed or used by man, resulted in something either aesthetically or practically beneficial to him. But man neither 'created' the raw materials, nor did he 'invent' the theories behind them. He simply discovered already existing phenomena/matter, and then used the mental/physical tools at his disposal to fashion a product of his choosing (your fern being a good example of such).

p.s. I like this one better than Barnsley's. Man did not serve as the 'intermediary' in its creation :)

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Diamond]

Chimpanzees have been known to deceive others in their group to keep choice treats for themselves...

x42 did that a lot.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

They're all examples of inter-species deception, of course. The firefly doesn't seek to deceive his own, but others, from outside the community. When faced with the "other" from outside the community, and survival is at stake, then deception is very much an appropriate and adaptive strategy. But when directed against one's own, and the members of one's own community or species, then it is dysfunctional if widely practiced....

But I don't think that this changes the basic thrust of my argument that when such practices become widespread, it is dysfunctional. Even among chimps, deception of one's mates is limited to specific circumstances like this, and done occasionally, not as a matter of course. When it becomes the norm, and deception is constant and present in most or all aspects of daily interaction, then society breaks down, and the group suffers, along with all the individuals in it.

I still say that by definition, an evolutionary process cannot be dysfuntional. But even if it were in some sense, the basic thrust of my argument is still that we don't regard what chimpanzees do as morally wrong, even if they were to wipe their entire species out deceiving one anaother. If Eichmann was just as much a product of evolution as chimpanzees, then he was no more wrong than they in deceiving those he regarded as his opponnents. My point is that a culturaly normative moral system that evolves and changes relative to cultures does not give an adequate accounting of what we both viscerally perceive as the hideously and murderously cruel, despicable, immoral acts of Adolph Eichmann.

Cordially,

[general_re]

A belated reply to your #639 (been off-line for a few days).

That's okay - everyone's been offline for the last day or so around here ;)

I'm afraid that too many high school and college students (and, apparently, FReerepublic posters) become enamored of the images (in a superficial ?video game? way) and miss out completely on the universal beauty of the mathematics behind them.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Are you suggesting that, because a (human-programmed) computer generated the non-existent (in nature) fern, that God's footprints, therefore, are not to be found in everything that exists in the universe? (i.e., man can 'create' outside of His influence?)

Not really, no. Good guess, but wrong.

What I am suggesting is that, for many, many years now, the complexity and diversity of life on earth, and the structure of the universe in general has been promoted as evidence of the existence of God. But here we have what is, to our eyes, a very complex structure, which is the result of some rather simple algorithms. The product is complex, but the process is not.

The assumption all along is that complexity and diversity require some sort of superbeing, some awesome intelligence capable of designing such things. But when one has a look at the mathematical blueprint for a fern, the blueprint is simple enough that we can reproduce it on a $100 programmable pocket calculator. This hardly smacks of omniscience and omnipotence.

Let's say an acorn falls to the ground and then takes root, or is purposefully planted by a human hand, and a large oak tree results a hundred years (four human generations) later. That oak tree is then felled, and its wood used to make a group of beautiful oak tables. Because, a hundred years after the acorn took root, there is no visible sign of a 'connection' between that acorn and the beautiful tables, does that mean that the acorn either (1) never existed, or (2) had nothing to do with the creation of the beautiful furniture?

No. On the other hand, if someone asks me to show them an acorn, I can show them an acorn. I can even show them an acorn sprouting, and a oak sapling, and a mature oak tree. I can show them lumberjacks and sawmills. I can show them furniture makers and delivery trucks and showrooms. I'm not reduced to trying to argue the existence of some mysterious and all-powerful invisible acorn, or "Acorn," which is the source of all things table-ish. What would your reaction be, I wonder, were I to posit such a thing to you?

The difference between the two is clear, and an example of why argument-by-analogy is generally not a good idea. I can show people acorns, as many as they want. The argument for the connection between acorns and furniture is strong, because we can see every step in the process, including the starting acorn. Any attempt to make an analogous argument about the connection between all life on earth and the existence of God is bound to fail, because such an argument cannot help but beg the question, and assume to be true the very thing it is supposed to be proving to be true - that God exists. IOW, a clever form of petitio principii.

The question is: who/what provided them? A chance/coincidental combination of random events occurring over an indeterminate amount of time, which just 'happened' to result in a universe which exhibits a degree of order and design which boggles the human mind, and only a pitiful fraction of which the human mind has yet to discover, let alone comprehend?

Come now - you wish to argue both ways here. The "order" is evidence of design, but oddly, so is the incomprehensibility of it. When it's neat and orderly, that's evidence of design. And when it's messy and incomprehensible, why that's evidence of design, too. That is, needless to say, a rather convenient proposition for you. Everything is evidence of design - end of debate. The value of such self-contained and self-reinforcing arguments is rather doubtful, I think.

For you, the question of the existence of God is not an open one, I would imagine. Be careful not to let that color your views and affect your ability to view evidence as though the question were open. IOW, you don't have to give up on believing in God, but the ability to look at things objectively is a useful one.

But let's try this one. What generated that fern - a simple process consisting of a few simple rules, or a vast and omnipotent deity who personally reached down to arrange the very atoms into that particular pattern. Occam's Razor works both ways, I think ;)

BUT, when, in 'nature', the exact same entities (mathematical constants, geometric forms, behaviors predictable by algebraic/trigonometric functions, etc., etc.) seem to occur, time and time again, in such seemingly unrelated objects/occurrences (from the substance and motion of sub-atomic particles, to the substance and motion of the largest known bodies in the universe), these amazing 'connections' cannot possibly be explained by use of the term 'coincidence.' When one finds a figurative 1776 in innumerable (otherwise seemingly unrelated) places, the words significance/design/order/intelligence are far more compelling than chance.

Even though I don't find it particularly persuasive myself, I dragged out the old "why is pi everywhere?" argument myself, to see how well it fit. It didn't, at least not very well. If you'd like, though, longshadow was my foil, and might be willing to discuss this particular aspect of the thread with you further. You can refer to posts 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 505, 508 for how that discussion developed.

And I must point out that the fact that something has significance to us is not itself evidence of intelligence behind that thing, or operating in the creation of such a thing. I find it significant that my senators are senators Schumer and Clinton, but I defy you to discover any rational intelligence that could produce such a perverse outcome ;)