Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Well sure it does, dear brother in Christ. But we also know from our own day-to-day experience that there's always ever so much more than "the human body can experience." Personally, I think the five senses are vastly overrated as "sources" of "truth." At best their reports are but a species of evidence that must be turned over to the critical judgment for analysis and interpretation. For such "reports" are given to our consciousness just as you say, in linear form. You can string beads all day long and still not come up with a respectable insight into the nature of things.
Also, your insights to Fr. Coyne’s discussion of the distinctions between “creation” and “origin” are very engaging. Certainly, the initiation of successful communication in living things is not a one time event.
Again, thank you so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
And I appreciate hosepipe's point. It is as if our vision and minds are limited to perceive four dimensions. By math physics and philosophy we can discern the real possibility of additional spatial or temporal dimensions - but generally speaking, we are not equipped 'sense' them.
Likewise, by math and physics we can discern and actually test general relativity, e.g. time dilation - be we are not equipped to 'sense' such things.
Now theres a piece of wisdom..
I came across something in my reading yesterday that I thought you might enjoy. I found it hilarious. It's an excerpt from David Berlinski's Deniable Darwin that I found on the Access Research Network web site. In it, he has the eminent novelist Jorge Luis Borges apply Darwinian principles and reasoning to literary theory.
On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don QuixoteEvidently, not everybody appreciates Berlinski's sense of humor. Jeffrey Shallit trashes him here, calling him "king of poseurs."I imagine this story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.
His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote."
I raise my eyebrows.
Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.
"The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo."
Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.
"As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576."
I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."
I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?"
"Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."
But then again, stuck pigs have been know to squeal....
Only slightly less humorous is the indignation of Shallit - who evidently cannot handle wit.
Thank you oh so very much for bringing this one to the table, dearest sister in Christ!
Thinking about this further, using a computer program such as TaxCut, it seems to me that the creator of Taxcut- the coder, acts as the metainfo in hte creation of hte software.
The coder NEEDS to know precreation how to code the program so that problems won’t arise, and he needs to carefully code to avoid problems. If he just simply threw out a bunch of ‘noise’, the program certainly wouldn’t work.
Now, let’s say a virus hits the program, and changes the info already present- let’s say it changes the #2 into 2.7 (We’ll get into ‘neautral changes in a moment- but for now, let’s focuss on changes that actually affect the program)
Every set of instructions that rely on the #2 is now goign to be affected- not only does the virus’ effect affect the #2, but it also affects every set of instrucitons that rely on the #2. No longer does 2+2=4, but it now now = 5.4. If, using normal software, we’re owed $200, using htis changed software, we’re goign to now get back a different maount. 5 times 2 is now going to = 13.5
Now, the coder CAN anticipate such viruses making htis particular change (again, the coder acting as the metainfo) and can include code to correct any such change, but again, this points to the absolute need of higher metainfo anticipating change and coding the program to deal with and handle and correct such a change before the change even takes place. IF the coder doesn’t predesign the software to deal with htis, the program is pretty much hosed.
Now, according to macroevolution, there are a number of neutral mutaitons in life, that simply just hang around and do nothign until another change somehow activates them in the correct sequences to bring bout change.
Further, these neutral changes - the ones that are supposedly goign to help move a species beyond their own kinds, are somehow compliant with the species own specific info, and supposedly won’t cause problems when they become activated via other changes, and start their ‘self assemblies’ sometime in the future.
But let’s examine htis more closely. First of all, we know that dleterious mutaitons far outnumber neutral ones, and it takes a trmeendous amount of deleterious mutations to gain one neutral mutaiton. The number of deleterious mutaitons that would HAVE to affect the program/species tryign to gain then umbers of neutral mutaitons macroevolutionsits tell us led to macroevolution, would simply overwhelm the program/species- Going back to the software, this would mean that there would HAVE to be an overwhelming number of deleterious changes before you got a single ‘neutral’ mutation, (5’s now= 5.9, 7’s now = 7.1, and so on and so forth) and hte software simply would not work. While the coder could in theory anticipate a bunch of changes, and code hte software to deal with htese changes, it woudl take a TREMENDOUS intelligence and foresight on their part to do so- making hte need for the intelligence behind the design of the metainformaiton that much greater.
However, we know from centuries of experimentation that species have unique species specific metainformation, inthat you can’t simply just throw a bunch of changes at the species and expect them to remain fit. adding changes that are not ‘coded for’ result in deleterious conditions, loss of info etc. just as it would in the software program IF the coder didn’t predesign hte program to handle certain changes.
I’ll have to expand htis further later, especiallyhte point about ‘neutral’ mutations acting on a living species- but examining predesign, it becoem quite evident that there is an absolute need for a controlling, directing, allowing/dissallowing predesigned metainfo already present to ensure fitness when faced with changes from outside forces acting on the lower information.
Fascinating analysis, CottShop! I just have some observations and questions.
If one fills the role of "coder" with eternal, omniscient God, then certainly this coder can "anticipate" (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and "defend itself" against, e.g., the (usually bad) effects of genetic mutation, which is usually ascribed to a "random cause." (That term sounds like an oxymoron; but maybe it is not one. I'm keeping my mind open.)
But still I think this model generally would be wrong on two counts. In the first place, for the coder to work in this way (should he/she/it so choose it) would be tantamount to establishing determinism as the most fundamental rule of the universe.
While determinism is just dandy as a means for understanding the application of a rule and how it might play out in the world theoretically, it does nothing to explain the rise of novelty in nature, and therefore of the diversity of life. In the second place, developed from the first, any deterministic model of nature, being mechanistic in its foundational principles, is systematically blind to potential non-material, non-mechanistic contributions to natural causation. For any such finding would be self-defeating to the argument that nature is, at bottom, the sum of the random activity of "dumb" matter at any given point in time.
And yet the irony seems to be that, without the random in nature, novelty in nature cannot occur.
And if novelty cannot occur, then that means that the world of nature must be perfectly "static." Meaning: No change. No development. No "evolution."
And also as it seems to me: No human free will. In a determined world, human judgment and choice would be perfectly superfluous.
Must conclude for the time being without drawing any conclusions here, dear CottShop. I just figure that these problems are bigger than either of us, or both of us in combination. :^)
Thank you ever so much for pinging me to your excellent analysis/post!
[[If one fills the role of “coder” with eternal, omniscient God, then certainly this coder can “anticipate” (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and “defend itself” against, e.g., the (usually bad) effects of genetic mutation, which is usually ascribed to a “random cause.” (That term sounds like an oxymoron; but maybe it is not one. I’m keeping my mind open.) ]]
Yep this was one point I was goign to bring up to show the absolute need, and reality of, predesign- which of course shows the metainfo as nothign short of the Omniscient’s anticipating foreknowledge handiwork, as well it shows that each species has their own set of species specific paramters since htis ‘coder’ foreknew which deleterious mutaitons would affect which species.
[[While determinism is just dandy as a means for understanding the application of a rule and how it might play out in the world theoretically, it does nothing to explain the rise of novelty in nature, and therefore of the diversity of life.]]
I see nothign wrong with this as the coder would foreknow novelty as well and could design each species specifically in such a manner as woudl benefit the species fitness as novel traits appear (I’m not sure the word novel shoudl be used as the traits are simply enhanced or reduced due ot mutaitons, and nothing really novel is taking place- species are simply undergoing what they were predesigned to endure really- any ‘different’ result is simply a result of predesign- a derterministically foreknown design I would htink)
[[And also as it seems to me: No human free will. In a determined world, human judgment and choice would be perfectly superfluous.]]
This is a tough one, and one I’ve struggled with over hte years- I think God’s foreknowledge determined His perfect plans, but also shaped His allowed plans as well, and hwile one could mount an argument that if God already foreknew every thought, action etc, then free will does not exist, but I think the answer lies in the fact that we do infact have free will, and that God knew every thought and action etc, beforehand, and shaped His allowed will well before hte foudnations of hte earth were laid down (Perhaps these wills were ternally present- but that’s another discussion).
We can still have free will even with a God who is deterministic, and nothign we do or say will change how He knows everyhtign is goign to turn out- even if we’re presented with a 1000 choices, and htrough reasoning and contemplation we choose one ‘trying to trick God’ as it were, God already knew our descision and adjusted His allowed will accordingly before hand
This is a deep deep subject, and oen that can drive ya batty if we’re not careful, but I’ll have to dissagree abotu God not beign able to be deterministic. At least till I hear more coutnerargument
[[coder can “anticipate” (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and “defend itself” against,]]
One point here- The coder can as well determine whether He wants a particular species to be able to defend or not- He created man eternal to begin with, then through our sin, we became corrupted, so God is capable obviously of both, and our sins have caused us to become susceptible to things were were never originally designed to be- Man i nthe garden, before the sin, was living God’s perfect will- and after hte sin, was forced to live God’s allowed will, which was inferior to His perfect will.
I’m pretty big on predestination, and a shocker of a book on predestination was from an old time preacher named Pink- I’ll see if I can find hte link to the online copy of his book- His book contains a few mistakes I beleive, but the majority of it is quite sound, but shocking (After the first itme reading it I became so angry at predestination I went on a drinking binge and nearly died- the concepts in the book are a bit alarming, but once you get over the intitial shock of just what predestination really means, especially for hte unsaved, it really starts to hit home and make us face the reality of our salvation and what a gift it really is.
Here’s the hwole online book called: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
by A.W. Pink
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/0-index.htm
Truly, error correction is a hallmark of good coding and redundancy is often used for speedy recovery in vital systems. Cyclic redundancy checks are often used to assure error-free data streams. These of course require an intelligent designer. And notably, we observe similar solutions in biological systems.
I find it particularly compelling that the biological versions of error correction and redundancy have been around since virtually the beginning of life in nature - whereas man had not yet discovered them (or invented them, if one is an Aristotlean) until the late 1960's.
On the predestination v. free will issue, I would only point out that it need not be an either/or situation. Scriptures include prophecy (predestination) and commandments (free will) - and show prophecies fulfilled and commandments obeyed and disobeyed with consequences.
[[redundancy is often used for speedy recovery in vital systems.]]
Which was another aspect I was goign to noodle over today- but perhaps tomorrow now
[[Scriptures include prophecy (predestination) and commandments (free will) - and show prophecies fulfilled and commandments obeyed and disobeyed with consequences.]]
I think htough this can be argued both ways still. I don’t take a final stand on predestinaiton, but it is somethign I’ve familiarized myself with a little, as some churches are big on preachign it, while others stress free will- I think if I were to label myself religion wise, it woudl be Baptist first, and with some Calvanism to boot, which is why the subject interests me- but again, not goign to hitch my wagon to either really as it’s simply a hteological issue (which might have pretty serious implications about hte reality of Salvation/non salvation though, but whether free will, or directed,, the most important hting is that eternity is secured for me and my family, and that’s enough for me- other realities are just interests to me really)
Have you by any chance read that book I linked to? Here’s some snippits that really got to me when I first read it:
“Behold therefore the goodness and the severity of God” Rom. 11:22.
In the last chapter when treating of the Sovereignty of God the Father in Salvation, we examined seven passages which represent him as making a choice from among the children of men, and predestinating certain ones to be conformed to the image of his Son. The thoughtful reader will naturally ask, And what of those who were not “ordained to eternal life?” The answer which is usually returned to this question, even by those who profess to believe what the Scriptures teach concerning God’s sovereignty, is, that God passes by the non-elect, leaves them alone to go their own way, and in the end casts them into the Lake of Fire because they refused his way, and rejected the Saviour of his providing. But this is only a part of the truth; the other part — that which is most offensive to the carnal mind — is either ignored or denied.
Stating it in its baldest form the point now to be considered is, has God foreordained certain ones to damnation?...”
And it goes on to make the case I never imagined possible & which really kinda shook me. Here’s the link to that passage at least if oyu wanna take a look-see as to what he has to say: http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/chapter05.htm
Of a truth, God's Name I AM is my guide. Thus any man-as-the-observer time-relative theological debate is foreign to me.
And no, I haven't read the linked book yet but I did scan the passage you mentioned. The argument is familiar probably because the debate never ends on this forum.
I use this metaphor a lot, but it applies here as well. It is as if we Christians are looking at the same seven-faceted diamond but from different facets. What one sees in the diamond - the words of God - may be a bit different than the other guy, but it is the same diamond and the same Light.
Some who see the predestination facet would say all men are hopelessly depraved and condemned already, that God is not choosing them for that fate but rather choosing to save those He wills.
Some who see the free will facet would say that God wants "whosoever will" to be saved, that a man may accept or reject the gift. Each man is a blank slate, his fate the result of his free will.
Again, I do not see predestination v free will as an either/or. But in the same breath, I would not say that all men have "equal spiritual opportunity." Nor would I say that man's sense of justice, equality, righteousness, time, etc. should ever be used to measure God.
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
As a manager of coders and other types of intelligent designers for many years.. I learned that proper planning looked for redundancy and variations of redundancy that is in all systems.. Intelligent System design is almost completely a matter of recognizing redundancy.. and dealing with it creatively.. Jealous management of things that happen over and over was very important when 50,000 bytes of Ram memory was a lot, much less than that was usually the rule..
I appreciated then, and do now that God does not make Bluebirds.. he made Bluebirds that make Bluebirds... The logic of that is incredibly creative and efficient.. The sub-routine of life.. There is a talent to recognizing redundancy.. and another different talent to dealing with it as "an asset".. not "a liability"..
Nicely put! Same here.
Aside from the occasional exercise in head-butting with the likes of GGG, (who is guilty of daily spamming FR's "News" forum with multiple posts of editorials from [mainly three] YEC websites) I frequent these threads for the fellowship of like-minded believers who are thinking beyond Ussher's 1600s screed -- and Darwin's inadequate description of biological development...
I simply can't count the number of blessings God has sent me though the thoughtful and insightful words of folks like BB & A-G!
Too bad GGG claims that he/she no longer reads my posts. Otherwise I would have pinged him/her to this one -- instead of "talking about him/her behind his/her back"...
And many think they were "innovators" to come up which such things in the 1960's. LOLOL!
Hmmmm... now theres a take on mitosis I have never considered...
Studying data compression is a mental trip to take..
I studied data compression for a number of years..
The ways to actually compress data (meaning putting 3 pounds of data into a 2 pound bag or smaller..) should be mandatory study for DNA researchers.. Because that is exactely what DNA is.. IS God compressing information.. DNA is data compression.. not like data compression but exactely data/information compression..
Maybe computer data compressor engineers should study DNA as well..
Could be they'd learn something.. Ya think!...
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.