If you believe God had anything to do with man’s origins.
In his column last month on Humanevents.com, Mac Johnson, a man whose writing I’ve always admired, claimed that the concept of Intelligent Design is a “really, really bad idea — scientifically, politically, and theologically.” He attacked ID using the usual list of specious arguments, distortions, and straw-man fallacies commonly used by the minions of scientism. Since I wrote rather extensively on the subject in a previous article, I won’t rehash it all here in detail. However, I felt the need to respond to at least some of the theological garbage spewed by Johnson in this piece.
The appellation ‘Darwin’s Lapdog’ is a tribute to Johnson’s predecessor (as a Darwin apologist) Thomas Huxley. Popularly known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog,’ Huxley, a contemporary of the British naturalist, had two mitigating factors in his favor which Johnson cannot claim: First, he was an avowed agnostic (in fact he coined the term), while Johnson claims to believe in God; and second, Huxley, unlike Mac Johnson and his modern-Darwinist cohorts, didn’t have the advantage of 150 years of scientific research which utterly failed to prove Darwin’s theory.
Johnson claims that “ten years ago, ID had enough confidence and honesty to go by its birth name, creationism. Whereas today, it has been dressed up in a lab coat and a mail-order PhD . . .” This petty attack on the credentials of the scientists studying ID and the thousands of doctors and scientists who are on public record doubting Darwinism (in spite of the risk of just this sort of ungracious public ridicule) is another favored tactic of the Left. This over-simplified and inaccurate description of ID has already been addressed by the Discovery Institute, the world’s preeminent ID think-tank: “the charge that ID is ‘creationism’ is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize ID without actually addressing the merits of its case.” They continue, “Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. ID starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.” This is the first of many straw-man logical fallacies with which Johnson clumsily tries to prove his point.
Johnson claims that ID is not scientific because “it predicts nothing, since it essentially states that everything is the way it is because God wanted it that way.” In fact, ID begins, according to the Discovery Institute, with the hypothesis that “if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.” They cite the concept of irreducible complexity as one example. This conforms to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation, leading to a conclusion. Darwinists, on the other hand, quite unreasonably blanch at the prospect that there may have been a Guiding Hand behind man’s origin.
Johnson, who claims to believe in God and may or may not be Catholic, mocks the idea of a Creator – the most fundamental of the underlying pillars of Judeo-Christian doctrine; one simply cannot be a Christian if he rejects the concept of a Creator. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order.” It further states, “The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all of human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time began.”
The only scriptural reference he uses in defense of Darwin is a rather opaque quote attributed to Jesus from the extra-Biblical apocryphal Gospel of Thomas: “If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, that is a marvel; but if the spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.” While it is more likely this quote refers to the mystery of the Incarnation of God as man in the Person of Christ Jesus than an endorsement of Darwinian evolutionary theory, its very use proves Johnson found little validation for Darwinism in the actual Bible.
Bizarrely, he also uses an out of context quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (“In the end, we know God as unknown”) to bolster his claims. I wonder why he didn’t pick the following quote from Aquinas’ Shorter Summa: “multiplicity and distinction occur in things not by chance or fortune but for an end . . . multiplicity in things is not explained by the order obtaining from intermediate agents, as though from one simple first being there could proceed directly only one thing that would be far removed from the first being in simplicity, so that multitude could issue from it, and thus, as the distance from the first simple being increased, the more numerous a multitude would be discerned. Some have suggested this explanation. But we have shown that there are many things that could not have come into being except by creation, which is exclusively the work of God, as has been proved.” He goes on to write, “the multiplicity and distinction existing among things were devised by the divine intellect.” Sounds a bit like intelligent design, huh Mac?
In lieu of any actual argument, Johnson, like all Darwin sycophants, continually uses the straw-man tactic of culling the evolutionary examples he cites from the domain of micro-evolution – the universally accepted (and scientifically observable) concept that small changes occur within a given species such as when a bacterium develops a resistance to antibiotics – rather than citing an example of macro-evolution, or how one species transmogrifies over time into an entirely new species. There is a very simple reason for this sleight-of-hand: there is virtually no compelling evidence to support this, the cornerstone of Darwin’s theory – even after 150 years of looking.
In the 17th century, scientist/philosopher Pascal posited his famous wager: It is better to wager that God is because if you win, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. If you wager God is not, you gain nothing if you win; if you lose, you lose all. An obvious concomitant to this would be the following: If He is, then we should honor Him and His works, not mock them. Otherwise the wager is a mere intellectual exercise and really quite useless. For his part, Johnson, with customary humility, and heedless of the implications of Pascal’s famous wager, repeatedly mocks the God of creation: “I spend most of my time as a pharmaceutical researcher thinking about how to correct the commonly occurring mistakes of our allegedly intelligent body design.” And this: “wouldn’t an omniscient designer have come up with a countermeasure to malaria that, say, wouldn’t kill so many innocent children.” And how about this for a stunning example of theological ignorance: “. . . have you ever thought about what sort of God it implies we have?” (It being the idea that God made the AIDS virus, smallpox, and polio.)
Disease and death, in Christian belief, are the wages of original sin – man’s fall from grace through Adam’s transgression – and are the very reason God sent a Redeemer through Whom death may be defeated and eternal life obtained. Maybe a little less time in the laboratory and a bit more in Sunday school might have paid dividends.
Since he mocks and ridicules the concept of a Just God Who created man in His image, and asserts God had nothing to do with the diversity of life we see all around us, it begs a simple question: just what kind of God does he believe in? What role does he assign God in this new religion he has created outside of scripture and revelation?
If Mac Johnson feels he must defend Darwinism (and he is certainly more qualified than I am in this area), that is his right; but his argument would be more effective if he refrained from the usual straw-man tactic of pretending the ID community rejects micro-evolution and instead produce some evidence to support his position on the real point of contention in this debate: that man was not created by a loving God in His image, but rather developed by mere happenstance along with every other form of life on the planet, over millions of years from a single common ancestor. And since he clearly has no idea what Intelligent Design theory really is, and is even more ignorant of basic theological concepts, perhaps Mac Johnson (and his readers) would have been well-served by listening to the advice of one of his apparent ancestors, the Geico caveman, before writing this article: “How about a little research first?”
Reading the various full and partial definitions of evolution, it’s apparent that evolution’s definitions, like its various theories, are also evolving over time – it’s always nice to see a scientific “fact” emulate its subject matter and evolve right along with it. “Change over time”, “descent with modification”, “evolution is not random and unguided and it does not claim how life began” and “the opposite of what that last idiot said” are just a few of the various definitions of evolution on this comment thread.
To my mind, intelligent design theory is just the latest species in a long line of Theory of Evolution taxonomic classifications. There is even scientific proof that evolution theory evolves, although there is some dispute over whether this evolution of evolution theory is strictly random and governed only by physical laws, or directed by some higher power.
The evolution of evolution was witnessed in 1997 at a convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) – and for those evolution deniers out there – many witnesses (mostly competent biology teachers, although some were fatheads) came forward to confirm the event.
Previous to this evolutionary event, the NABT had proudly published the following definition of evolution: “Evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments” – whew, quite a mouthful even for high school teachers – they didn’t leave any possibilities unmentioned as far as I can see.
Now there are different accounts of exactly what happened to evolution theory during that fateful week when the NABT was holding its annual convention – but there is no scientific doubt that the evolution of evolution occurred. Getting back to the actual event, the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal” mysteriously disappeared from the definition. Yes, it’s true! At the end of that historic week, a new definition of evolution emerged identical to the prior definition except it lacked those two important, but apparently unnecessary physiological appendages; specifically the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised”.
So, what actually happened? Being biological science, there are, of course, several theories of how the definition lost its “impersonal” and “unsupervised”. The short temporal gradient of the evolutionary event led some scientists to conclude this was a verifiable example of punctuated equilibrium. The change occurred behind the closed doors of the executive committee meeting room, which is exactly as “punk eek” predicts evolutionary change does occur – rapidly, in small groups and separate from the greater parent herd. Naturally, the gradualists objected to this explanation pointing out that the theory had also evolved in prior years during other conventions and this was just another example of the slow, gradual descent with modification of the theory of evolution.
A few biology teachers, mostly from the San Francisco area, pointed to the work of Professor Schindewolf and the “hopeful monster” theory – in other words, a completely new theory of evolution emerged directly from the older, parent theory without exhibiting any of the normal transitional intermediate changes – a freak but functional mutation. These same teachers also pointed out that the orthodox evolutionary model would have required the slow but steady loss of letters in the words: for example, “impersonal” would have become “imersonal” and then maybe “meronal” and so forth until eventually the words completely disappeared. But, that’s not what happened.
No, No, No and Saltation!, Saltation! cried the majority of the biology teachers when hopeful monster explanations were introduced. For the scientifically illiterate evangelicals reading this, saltation is a sudden, abrupt and massive change in a species, like a fully formed, taxonomically correct mammal emerging from a reptile egg. Saltation is too close intellectually to “and then a miracle occurred” to suit most scientists.
A small group of biology teachers from various private schools tentatively suggested the evolutionary change in the definition could be attributed to intelligent design. Members of the NABT executive committee were overheard arguing behind closed doors shouting phrases like: “let’s not anger the taxpayers” and “actually, we don’t have any proof that the process is impersonal or unsupervised” and “well, so what if we don’t have proof, we can’t just give in to those religious nuts” and so forth.
The ID proponents further noted that the loss of the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised” completely changed the meaning of the definition, which created an irreducibly complex theory of evolution definition bearing no explainable relation to the prior definition. “Nonsense”, “unscientific wishful thinking” and “what time is lunch” the other biologists shouted back.
We may never know exactly what happened during that eventful week, but the evidence is overwhelming that evolution theory can and does evolve. Was there intelligent design going on within that executive committee meeting and behind those closed doors – highly unlikely in my opinion.
Phil:
Sorry that your comments disappeared. I was looking forward to your responses. I’d sure appreciate it if you could repost them. We’d both benefit from our continued interchanges.
Evolution is an issue chock-full of false dichotomies. Discussing it, people talk at each other. Naive me, I still believe there are ultimate consensus truths re God & evolution that we can discover together, ‘we’ including only those who preach and practice intellectual honesty.
My only non-negotiable: ID is not science. What are yours?
The definition of evolution is change in allele frequencies in a population over time. It is technical but also demonstrably true. The theory of evolution is that populations change over time through variation and natural selection. This, too, is arrived at through the mechanism of research which gathers evidence. ID.creationism does not do research. It does not have a theory. It does not even define what it is.
Paul Skurka:
“In contrast, evolution must be science because it predicts everything – although the predictions are normally made retroactively. But, it’s accepted ‘science; to make retroactive predictions in the case of evolution.”
Congrats. You understand science. Science proceeds from effect to cause via inductive logic. Scientists first shoot the arrow (Observe, measure, and quantify) and then paint the bulls-eye (Theorize).
“For example, evolutionary biologists didn’t technically predict the discovery of DNA, although their particular version of the story is that they always knew there was an internal ‘change’ mechanism (so did animal breeders for that matter), they just weren’t sure what it was exactly. So, after Crick and Watson became famous, evolutionists claimed they had always predicted the existence of DNA.”
Congrats. You really do understand science. The theory of Evolution would make no sense unless the basic of all life was a common, unifying mechanism.
“Evolution is a ‘fact’ meaning that it is the only possible explanation for historic biological change.”
Oops. I may have been too hasty. It is a fact that evolution occurred. As one proceeds from the earliest geological strata to the latest, simple life forms become more complex. You’re confusing the absolute fact that evolution occurred with the various theories that try to explain why evolution occurred.
“So, we have natural selection as an accepted but mysterious process that can’t be precisely defined in the case of homo sapiens, but must have played some undetermined role since we can supposedly see the results of natural selection among our present species members.”
Damn. I had such high hopes, but you’re putting the horse before the cart. Remember, science is inductive. Theories are templates that overlay the facts which explain why the facts are. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the facts.
One high kudo, though. You obfuscate your basic argument (We’re ignorant; therefore, God exists) very well, but, remember, “disproving” evolution does not prove whatever the hell your argument is. You must posit an affirmative, and confine it within the Scientific Method.
“For scientists, the probable outcome of such an effort is 90% weighted toward being unable to detect ongoing human evolution.”
Speciation is 100% probable. Google “evolution speciation”.
“The evolution of evolution was witnessed in 1997 at a convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) – and for those evolution deniers out there – many witnesses (mostly competent biology teachers, although some were fatheads) came forward to confirm the event.
“Previous to this evolutionary event, the NABT had proudly published the following definition of evolution: ‘Evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments’.
“Getting back to the actual event, the words ‘unsupervised’ and ‘impersonal’ mysteriously disappeared from the definition.”
You failed to address why the definition was changed.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n32_v114/ai_20016438
Somebody made a cogent argument: The words “unsupervised” and “impersonal” could be construed to imply that God doesn’t exist. Still, the final statement from the conference is pretty definitive:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/EDUCATIO/NABT_TEA.htm
“Whether called ‘creation science, scientific creationism, intelligent-design theory, young-earth theory’ or some other synonym, creation beliefs have no place in the science classroom… The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments… Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples, both extant and extinct.”
LiveFree,
Show me how the scientific theory that man’s most ancient ancestor (ten’s of thousands of generations ago) was a single celled organism is ‘testable in a lab.’ It is not, ergo it is not, by your own definition, a scientific theory.
The only real difference between ID and Darwinism is the replacement of random with not random (and the fact that, since ID is in its infancy, it lacks 150 years of failure to prove itself).
A Darwinist’s idea of scienctific explanation goes something like this:
Atheist scientist #1: “Since we cannot really explain specifically how a fish grew arms and legs, let alone lungs, why don’t we just call it a ‘random mutation’, Bob. Of course randomness cannot be replicated and is anti-scientific, but the boobs out there won’t know the difference anyway.”
Atheist scientist #2: “Yeah, I see where you are going with that Frank, but I don’t think that’s gonna convince enough people that God doesn’t exist. We need more.
Atheist scientist #1; “How about this: we tell ‘em the (make air quotes here) ‘random mutations’ take a reeeeeeeaaly looooong tiiiiiiime to happen; this way we can’t possibly be asked to prove it in a lab.
Atheist scientist #2: “Hmmmmmm. You may be on to something here, Frank. Let’s go with it.”
Thus was born, in the smoke-filled back room of a laboratory, the modern, Godless, scientism-drenched, unscientific, Darwinist movement.
Jeff, genetics is one of the methods by which scientists have shown commonality of ancestry of life on earth. I don’t see how it doesn’t count as a discipline that is tested in the lab.
“Sorry that your comments disappeared. I was looking forward to your responses. I’d sure appreciate it if you could repost them. We’d both benefit from our continued interchanges.”
*** They’ve now shown up as #96
“Naive me, I still believe there are ultimate consensus truths re God & evolution that we can discover together, ‘we’ including only those who preach and practice intellectual honesty.”
*** This is the very point I made in my essay “The Politics of Science and religion”. We are in agreement.
“My only non-negotiable: ID is not science. What are yours?”
*** ID is not science. We are in agreement again. ID addresses the “why” questions about the universe and human life within it. Science addresses the “how”. They are different parts of the same whole: the search for Truth.
My “non-negotiable” is that the Universe doesn’t simply exist. It was created. That which created the universe is by definition God. [And “God” is not the same thing as one religion’s manifestation or representation of God].
Take care, Phil
By the way, I’ve said everything I think I can say on this subject without simply repeating myself again, so unless there’s a particular question about a term or phrase I’ve used, I’ll absent myself from further comment — unless a new sub-topic arises that I feel compelled to address.
Everyone have a Merry Christmas.
Jeff Osonitsch.
“Show me how the scientific theory that man’s most ancient ancestor (ten’s of thousands of generations ago) was a single celled organism is ‘testable in a lab.’ It is not, ergo it is not, by your own definition, a scientific theory.”
Let’s paraphrase your argument. You contend that evolution scientists must be able to create a fully-functioning human being in a lab from inorganic material; else, evolution fails as a scientific theory. “We’re ignorant; therefore, God exists”.
Essentially, you’re basing your argument on a false dichotomy: Either evolution is true, or ID is true. More specifically, you contend that any disproof of evolution or any inability of evolutionalists to fully prove their theory mandates that ID is true.
Well, Jeff, science doesn’t work that way. ID must stand on its own as an integral scientific theory. Please peruse my past posts for ample reasons why ID isn’t.
Now, the crux of your argument. We don’t know how life arose, or what the specific stages that life went through to evolve from the most rudimentary life forms to us.
What we do know, however, is that life evolved. That fact is indisputable. If you doubt that fact, then you doubt science.
We also have extant examples of new species arising from old ones. Google “evolution speciation”. We also know that our brains continue to evolve. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5741/1662. We can also inject genes from one species into another and have those genes became an integral part of the genome of the transferred-to species. Etc. Please peruse millions of science articles for addt’l examples.
Remember what Darwin’s book was entitled: The Origin of Species. All we need is scientific verification of one new species arising without the hand of the Creator being involved to make Darwin’s theory credible.
Do the 3 specific examples I give above require a Creator to effect these changes and this evolution? No. The first 2 occurred naturally, and the 3rd involved direct human intervention.
“The only real difference between ID and Darwinism is the replacement of random with not random.”
No. ID must demonstrate in the lab that the various species of Galapagos turtles were created by God and not in response to the geography, flora, and fauna of the individual Galapagos islands. Else, ID is not science.
If you respect science and lust to have ID as a competing scientific theory to evolution, then you must respect Quantum Mechanics and the scientifically-proven randomness of the atomic and sub-atomic world. You therefore must explain why God would imbue the universe with randomness.
Did God create this universe? Yes. Did he imbue it with a specific set of scientific laws? Yes. Does it require His constant intervention? No.
Get into your car. Turn the engine on. Drive it anywhere. Do autoworkers have to manufacture your car each time before you drive it?
God and evolution can cohabitate quite nicely. To your way of thinking, it’s either God (exclusive) or evolution, a false dichotomy.
Dr. Jackson – one difference between “dark matter” and “God” is the fact that scientists work to craft testable theories about it… and then test them. Google “wimps and machos” for some variations on the idea which attempt to make testable predictions. Indeed, the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Object) hypothesis has failed that testing, seeing as it predicts that we should see ‘eclipses’ of visible objects at a rate much higher than we actually measure. You can also look up MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) which predicts that there is no dark matter, but instead the laws of motion and/or gravity are different at large scales – though again some of its predictions don’t seem to hold up. Then there are those who propose that electromagnetic effects account for the difficult-to-explain motion of galaxies.
What testable theories do you propose about the origins – if any – of the universe? (As you know, I’ve not seen a solid case made that we can just automatically reject the notion of mass/energy existing eternally.)
Phil:
Well, we needn’t look any further than the filter of this forum for inductive proof that randomness underpins evolution because this forum’s filter sure works randomly.
Re post #107 (unless the filter randomly changes its number): We’re in agreement.
Re post #96: Food for thought. Time for a power walk. Later.
“The Politics of Science & Religion”: Dessert and apertif.
LiveFree,
You are making things up as you go along. I have said here repeatedly that I am open minded as far as evolution is concerned and that evolution is not antithetical to belief in God. Catholics (like me) are open to theistic evolution.
If evolution (from a single common ancestor all the current multiplicity of life arose) did in fact happen, my only point is, and always has been, that it was not random, accidental, and puroseless. Any demand that it was, such as is made by Darwinists is itself non-scientific. Likewise ID scientists are open to the possibility that macro-evolution took place; unlike Darwinists, however, they will not state unequivically that it did happen without proof.
You are completely mis-stating what ID is all about; this is typical of Darwinists seeking to discredit ID without debate; this is exactly the straw-man garbage Mac Johnson engaged in and is a useless and dishonest exercise. ID does not state that turtles, or any other form of life were necessarily created as is. That would be creationism, a presumption, and not scientific; ID does exactly what evolution theorists do, only without resorting to the dual deus ex machina’s of randomness and time.
By the definition of the Darwinists on this thread, the scientific standard is lab-testability. By this standard Darwinism fails miserably: random mutations over millions of years cannot be lab-tested or replicated.
If Darwinism = science, then ID = science. Period.
Perhaps “Darwinists” do insist that evolution was “random, accidental, and pur[p]oseless.” As I said before, that term is not really current and doesn’t apply to most proponents of evolution. You are free to insist that evolution was ‘not random, accidental, and purposeless’; however, until you can provide some evidence for this, it’s not a scientific position. I’ve pointed out evidence for the random nature of mutation, the evidence for sufficiency of natural selection to explain the data we have so far. What data is there that is not accounted for by this model?
Again, Einstein insisted that “God does not play dice”. The notion of random effects in Quantum Mechanics disturbed him, and he never stopped looking for scientific alternatives to QM. But he also recognized that he didn’t have an alternative theory yet, or even a good hypothesis, and didn’t object to the teaching of QM. The notion that mutations appear to be random and undirected is disturbing to many people as well… but from what I’ve seen they don’t recognize the need to propose an alternative scientific theory (or at least a hypothesis) before jumping into the classroom.
It’s possible that both groups are correct to be disturbed, and there is a better model to be discovered. Indeed, there probably is – QM and Relativity are very difficult to reconcile; at least one or probably both are wrong in some respects. But I haven’t seen any signs that a better model’s been discovered yet.
Raymond: Dress the pig up anyway you want, when scientists did their calculations about the universe they found they were missing something that couldn’t be seen or detected, other than they “knew” it was there. So they gave it a name (Dark Matter), and made it “real”. What that missing something actually is is anybody’s guess. Dark Matter is just a convenient placeholder to assign it a reality.
If this is the scientific method, then I have every right to assert that “something” equally unseen or directly detected created the universe, and that something is God.
Ray,
Thanks for pointing out my typo. That was quite gracious of you. I’m done.
Jeff:
Making it up as I go along? No. Simply explicating arguments so novel you’re never encountered them before. I do that, you know. Repeating the same-old, hackneyed, intransigent arguments is not my cup of tea.
“Catholics (like me) are open to theistic evolution.”
As far as our dialogue is concerned, you need to be opened to science, its laws, and its practices. If you are, then you’ll understand as I do that science is neither theistic nor atheistic.
“If evolution (from a single common ancestor all the current multiplicity of life arose) did in fact happen, my only point is, and always has been, that it was not random, accidental, and purposeless.”
You’ve already disqualified yourself as being open to science, its laws, and its practices. Please review my past posts re randomness and Quantum Mechanics.
“Any demand that it was, such as is made by Darwinists, is itself non-scientific.”
I’m not a Darwinist. I perceive the universe as God created it. His universe is suffused with randomness, accidentalness, chance, and probability.
“ID does exactly what evolution theorists do, only without resorting to the dual deus ex machina’s of randomness and time.”
Again, God incorporated randomness in the fabric of the universe insofar as the laws of science has uncovered it.
“By the definition of the Darwinists on this thread, the scientific standard is lab-testability. By this standard Darwinism fails miserably: random mutations over millions of years cannot be lab-tested or replicated.”
Do you realize that the universe is the scientist’s laboratory? I don’t think you do. Well, it is.
Even if we limit the laboratory to a room with bunsen burners, etc, random mutations can be studied in a lab, and replicated in a lab.
Still, you don’t understand scientific induction, how it operates, and what the Scientific Method is. Scientists like Darwin observe and quantify facts. Based on those observations, they infer and extrapolate, and posit a scientific theory. That scientific theory must explain the facts they’ve already observed, and facts they haven’t yet observed. Evolution passes this test.
Yes, scientists can’t replicate the universe in the lab, but what they can replicate reaffirms that evolution is an integral scientific theory.
Here’s the kicker: The reverse is true, too. If you want to disprove evolution, you must conduct replicatable experiments in a lab which falsify the theory of evolution. Under controlled conditions, you must demonstrate that evolution does not operate the way the adherents of evolution posit that it operates. Furthermore, you must orchestrate these controlled conditions using only the laws of science.
Yes, you must affirmatively demonstrate in a lab that evolution is false. Until you do, you’re not being open to science, its laws, and its practices.
“If Darwinism = science, then ID = science. Period.”
Again, no. ID is science if and only if ID is science. Any scientific theory must be affirmatively posited.
Is it such a big deal that God imbued randomness, chance, and chaos in His universe? I think not. So, God plays dice with the universe. Does it matter?
If Darwinism = science, then ID = science. Period.
No. I’m not certain what you mean by ‘Darwinism’, but evolution is known to happen. The evidence for it is overwhelming. The theory that was derived from the facts of evolution is not only valid, but strongly supported by evidence that has been gathered over the past century and a half.
ID does no science. No one has made any effort to try to develop proper hypotheses that explain the evidence. No one has made any effort to test the ideas offered by ID proponents. Until the ID folks are willing to put their doctrines up to the test of science, they are teaching religion, nothing else.
By the way, how much do you think that Professor Johnson would have been offended 20 years ago if a few folks with no background in the law had written books that asserted without a shred of evidence that his understanding of the law was wrong and then ignored everyone who pointed out that Professor Johnson not only understood the law, but that the critics were being intentionally dishonest?
Mr. Osonitsch: I didn’t do that to ‘point out your typo’; I am always careful to quote the words of others exactly, as it irritates me probably more than it should to be misquoted. I indeed intended to be gracious – if it helps, let me point out that I missed a closing parenthesis in comment 12, I didn’t pluralize ‘prediction’ in comment 30, and I obviously messed up my emphasis tags twice in comment 98.
Phil:
I didn’t need Pepto-Bismol. Your ratiocinations were eminently digestible.
First, some niggles.
You’re using dark matter as a simile for God. Desist. At best, it’s a superficial argument that can’t withstand rational scrutiny.
You say that there is not “a shred of proof that it (ie, dark matter) actually exists”. But, there is. Scientists can infer the existence of dark matter due to its gravitational effect on galaxies. Those effects are real. In fact, scientists have quantified the amount of dark matter in the universe.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
“The other constituents of the universe are dark matter, which composes about 22 percent of the universe, and ordinary matter, which is about 4 percent.”
What about the other 74%? Well, that 74% is dark energy, but that’s another story.
Dark matter is quantifiable while God is not. Thus, desist in using dark matter as a simile for God.
“But even though we think we understand how evolution works, and can substantiate only some of our theories, we KNOW FOR A FACT that God didn’t act purposefully because man can’t understand His purpose.”
Before I’ll respond, please formulate your scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Base it upon all available scientific evidence. Discuss how your theory is superior to the theory of evolution. Detail the lab tests you’ve conducted which affirm your theory. Propose how your theory is falsifiable. Describe new phenomena not yet observed, but which your theory predicts. iow, do the science.
Sure, God had a purpose when He created this universe. For me, that purpose is triumphally and joyfully expressed in the New Testament, but the New Testament can’t be translated into a scientific theory.
“If science can invent Dark Matter to fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle it can’t explain about how the universe operates, then why is acknowledging that God created the universe so anathema for many scientists?”
Damn it! Stop with the dark matter, already.
Look. The purview of science doesn’t encompass the universe’s creation. If the universe was created the way the Big Bang theory posits it was, science starts at 10 to the minus forty-third second after ‘time’ zero (.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second); ie, the Big Bang itself.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_Bang.html
otoh, If the universe was created the way M-Theory posits it was, then science might be able to encompass a ‘time’ before the Big Bang occurred. Still, M-Theory specifically and science in general will never address the exact ‘instant’ the universe was created, or any ‘time’ before that ‘instant’.
Science decouples the exact ‘moment’ the universe was created from science. If this helps, consider this decoupling Axiom #1 of Science. By definition, science absolutely eschews ultimate causes.
To do science, you must accept Axiom #1. Therefore, ID is not science. This absolute truth literally screams its absolute certitude.
How do I reconcile my faith that Jesus is my Savior with my belief that evolution occurred and that IDers suck? Pretty simple.
God created the Universe and imbued it with a few, simple scientific laws. We’ve learned some of them, but have a long way to go before we understand them all (By ‘long’, I could mean ‘eternity’, whatever that means). After He created the universe, God let the universe do its own thing. He could easily do that, you know. After all, He is omnipotent. Among the laws he imbued are what scientists call the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Among other things, QM posits that the micro world does not obey cause and effect. Events are random. Chaos reigns. Yet, order somehow proceeds out of this ultimate chaos. How can this be? Well, God is omnipotent. He can do what he damned well pleases.
The nice thing about QM is that is solves the metaphysical conundrum of free will. Of course, free will exists since not even God can predict the future of the universe He created.
Oh, the sublimeness of science. Every time I think about QM, my heart nearly bursts when I contemplate the majesty and transcendence of God. Thank you, God. You gave me free will. You gave me this magnificent universe. Everything in it resounds with Your glory.
Just a few niggles, Phil.
I’ve read a few of your other essays, and know pretty much from whence you come. You’re asking and trying to answer unanswerable questions. Consider this: Maybe science has more answers than you’re willing to admit. Maybe science can help answer the unanswerable questions. Maybe, just maybe, God decided before He created this universe to reveal Himself most fully to scientists via science. Wouldn’t that be a kicker?
Freelunch:
Many years back I sat about 10 feet from Phillip Johnson listening to a lecture on evolution sponsored by my wife’s church, a Presbyterian church in a well-to-do San Francisco suburb. I was there out of boredom with other entertainments, but didn’t expect to hear anything startling – turned out I was right about not hearing anything earth shattering but also very wrong, in an interesting way. Johnson, as he came to the lectern, was a plump, not very tall, older man who obviously had some slight physical impairment – I was told it was from a recent illness.
His voice was mild and his lecture style was a combination of a laid back, matter of fact delivery and wry amusement with both himself and his subject matter. He didn’t speak about intelligent design that evening – rather he spoke about the evolution issues discussed in his book, Darwin On Trial. My impression was he made his points well but didn’t try to shove them down anyone’s throat and, all in all, he seemed a very reasonable man about everything, including his lecture topic that evening – evolution.
At the completion of his prepared comments, he opened the floor to questions. Almost immediately, a man in the audience started hammering Johnson with question after question, but in the overly self-righteous, emotional style of a far-left, adult juvenile delinquent attacking Ann Coulter during a speech to the local college Republican Club. He wasn’t really asking questions, he was angry, obviously incensed with Johnson and trying to make the point that Johnson’s mild mannered, Clark Kent discussion of the problems with evolution theory was beyond the bounds of common decency, a serious affront to human reason and a topic that Johnson knew nothing about because he wasn’t an “official” scientist. Johnson answered back patiently and without rancor until the questioner looked around and realized he was the center of amazed and shocked church-goers, their mouths hanging open and looking at him like he was insane. At that point, his questions abruptly ended and the lecture was over. Johnson briefly shook hands and left, so I never formally met him beyond a brief handshake.
What I remember most from that night was the questioner, his loss of cool and the reaction of the other churchgoers. You must understand that my wife’s denomination is Presbyterian, Johnson is also Presbyterian and he’d agreed to speak simply as a favor to co-religionists and not as a fee paid lecturer. These Presbyterians are all about loving each other, endlessly organizing potlucks and charitable activities to help the local poor and sending church members on missions to Mexico and Albania to help children learn to read, building decent homes for them and engaging in every form of good deed imaginable – they’re such nice people it’s almost sickening. They frequently disagree with each other but always with respect and love for the other person. Seeing a church member verbally attack an invited guest shocked them and brought on that queasy feeling in their guts they try hard to avoid – that feeling that comes when you witness deliberate and unexplainable rudeness and discourtesy to a guest.
I was also shocked that some mental midget tried to verbally capture the lectern and lost control of his emotions over, what was to me, an unimportant topic like evolution – but I was most shocked that it was a church member. I’d seen these clowns at anti-war rallies in the early 70’s, but he was the last thing I expected to encounter within this congregation. I delicately asked my wife’s church friends about this guy, but they considered him a normal, average guy – not a religious fanatic or, in this case, a science fanatic. I knew he must be some kind of fanatic; his face as he fired questions at Johnson was the face you’d expect to see in the front row of a witch burning sometime during the 16th century, wildly waving his torch and shouting for the death of an evil one – a cursed, Satan worshipping witch. Later, I found out he was a techie – something to do with computers.
I didn’t learn very much about evolution that particular evening, but I did learn a great deal about techie religion and the cult of science worship – and that just from watching one of their fanatics denounce a heretic who dared to speak against science. When you think about it, we live in a technological age and so it shouldn’t really surprise us that many people worship science without realizing it – I just happened to witness a true believer that evening with his mask off and his emotions out of their cage.
My social-psychological theory, developed partly from this interesting field observation, is that many people, particularly people engaged in technical pursuits like science, computers, engineering, etc. find important emotional comfort, almost a refuge, in viewing their world as a closed loop system – a completely rational cause and effect continuum where every rational question has an equally rational answer. They conceptualize their world as a giant Microsoft operating system – sort of Windows Everything 2000X.
When Windows Everything 2000X occasionally crashes, there’s always a rational explanation; a bug in the code, a physical problem in the hardware, a false alarm due to some ignorant operator. In these situations, you turn first to the Windows’ manual for the answer. If you can’t find the solution, you can always do a memory dump and forward it to the nice folks at Microsoft for further analysis – but the emotionally important point is there is always a rational, perfectly logical explanation for the problem. If Microsoft finds a bug in the code, a solution is developed and it’s included in the next release. There are no ghosts in the machine, no unsolvable problems, no irrational actions and no questions that can’t be answered by following linear logic to the inevitable solution.
And, really, why shouldn’t we view our world as Windows Everything 2000X? Cell phones, Boeing 747’s, heart transplants and a host of other technological marvels speak much louder and in a more authoritative voice than ancient Greek philosophy with its silly metaphysical questions about “why was it created” and “for what purpose”? Science with a capital S cannot be wrong, although science can be wrong about a specific issue, but only until the bug is found and the patch is written. The parishioners of these techie cults have no patience with the philosophical abstractions of metaphysics – it’s a complete waste of their time and unsolvable questions hold no attraction for them – yet, at the same time it’s an outlet for their emotions and devilishly compelling to discuss.
Interestingly, they unconsciously plagiarize religious concepts, altering them as needed to support the beliefs of their cult. They believe they must defend Science, with sincerity and passion, from perceived unbelievers and spend much of their energy explaining why everyone else doesn’t understand how science works or why these ignorant others fail to grasp the fundamentals of the scientific method. People like Johnson are repulsive because they cleverly use their own beliefs and standards of proof against them. And, they hate having their motives questioned – don’t try to psychoanalyze me is their frequent cry. They want no part of the irrational human psyche, no pseudo-Freudian insights – some day science will fully explain the mechanics of why we act the way we do and that’s good enough for now.
Since Johnson’s lecture I’ve viewed the techies and their religion in a new light, it’s equally fascinating and pathetic. And, we need a better word than religion to describe their particular worldview; their theology is lacking in sophistication and really doesn’t qualify as a religion – I think it compares more closely to the defunct Cargo Cults of the South Pacific in many ways.
So, denouncing Johnson, someone I suspect you’ve never engaged in conversation, may represent a lost opportunity on your part to entertain a different point of view gained from discussion with an intelligent, sophisticated intellect.
Life Free: A few niggles back at ya. We really don’t disagree about the main points.
“You’re using dark matter as a simile for God. Desist. At best, it’s a superficial argument that can’t withstand rational scrutiny.”
*** I’m being provocative to make a larger point. I was using the rationale to believe in dark matter as an allegory for the invention of dark matter to fill in the unknown that “science” can’t explain. Both a belief in Dark Matter and a belief in God appear to me to require a common element: faith. By describing Jesus/Allah, etc as “God”, man may have gotten it wrong. But it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. By describing that-which-cannot-be-understood-any-other-way as dark matter, science is just doing what Einstein did with his original cosmological constant. We know the universe is real, and what we cannot explain we simply assign a value.
“You say that there is not “a shred of proof that it (ie, dark matter) actually exists”. But, there is. Scientists can infer the existence of dark matter due to its gravitational effect on galaxies. Those effects are real. In fact, scientists have quantified the amount of dark matter in the universe.”
*** Not to belabor the point unnecessarily, but to continue on with the comment I made above, “actually exists” is not the same thing as seeing an “effect”, and assigning the cause of that effect to “dark matter”.
I admit something is indeed out there. But so far the scientific method has not “proven” it to be “dark matter”. It could be fairy dust for all we know. [Again, don’t read too much into this point. I’m just questioning why those in this comment section who are wedded to the scientific method which demands tangible (not intangible) evidence before reaching a conclusion are so quick to believe in fairy dust and not accept that the universe didn’t “just appear”.
I’d be much less critical if they simply said something like: using the scientific method we can understand some things about the universe, but our theory about most of what is in the universe and makes it run is just a couple steps shy of outright conjecture, rather than “informed science”.] Dark Matter is a placeholder name for “we don’t know what it is, but we’ll give it a name anyway so our other calculations can still work out.”
“Dark matter is quantifiable while God is not.”
*** Yes, as long as the dark matter being quantified doesn’t turn out to be something other than “dark matter”, which means that via science we know scientifically that something is there, but we’re not sure what it really is. Dark matter is just a convenient name to describe the unknown.
As for quantifying God scientifically, God isn’t a corporal body. Science (man’s tools) cannot touch God directly. But God, imbuing man with logic and reason, can help man understand who and what God is. In a related way, science cannot measure “love”, but we know it is real. [Lust is not love; erections that can be measured is not love; etc.] There are some real things that exist, but are not revealed through science.
“Before I’ll respond, please formulate your scientific theory of Intelligent Design.”
*** That’s easy. As I’ve said countless times before, ID is not science.
“Sure, God had a purpose when He created this universe.”
*** You know that God had “purpose” (which means you “know” there is a God.) This is obviously something as real to you as, say gravity. Yet, your knowledge of God’s reality, existence and/or purpose is not discernable via science.
This is true for me as well. I also know that God exists, and acts with purpose. My rationale for understanding this is laid out in excruciating detail in “What kind of Car would Jesus Drive to take his Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?”, and “The True Nature of Human Morality.” And just to tie it all together, I think that science and man’s appreciation of and relationship to God together provide life’s answers, as I posited in “The Politics of Science and Religion”.
Science without a recognition of God produces an incomplete understanding of Truth, just as a focus on God to the exclusion of science produces an incomplete understanding of Truth.
“Science decouples the exact ‘moment’ the universe was created from science.”
*** Yes! Science explains “how”. Acknowledging and accessing God explains “why”.
“God created the Universe and imbued it with a few, simple scientific laws. We’ve learned some of them, but have a long way to go before we understand them all (By ‘long’, I could mean ‘eternity’, whatever that means). After He created the universe, God let the universe do its own thing. He could easily do that, you know. After all, He is omnipotent.”
*** Very well said, and I agree entirely. But in creating the universe and letting it “do it’s own thing”, this doesn’t mean that evolution, proceeding along the natural scientific laws that God created, couldn’t have a bias toward creating human life the way it has presently evolved. The bias is so fundamental and, to the human mind incomprehensible, that we can only see randomness. I guess what I’m objecting to is the scientifically arrived at “random/natural selection” explanation period, with no other non-scientific method of informed judgments to be taken seriously. Science provides a lot of answers, but not every answer.
What ID has done for me, particularly reading “The Wonder of the World”, is to show that there seems to be an innate logic to thing that I formerly saw as completely random. ID has led me to an even greater appreciation for science, since as I believe you said before, through science we see God’s hand at work.
The one thing I object to that others (not you) consistently say is that God has no place in understanding the universe and life within it. Only science provides those answers. God does — not as religion, but as the creator of the Universe and the author of a common human moral code.
It’s not enough to say that we can personally believe in the “myth of God”, as some have; but this “myth” has no role in human interactions that might impact “science”. Science that will not allow for God because God is not scientifically knowable is an incomplete guide for our lives. Like I said, science doesn’t prove to me that I love my wife and child, but that love is just as real as the computer I’m typing on.
The reason we (everyone — not you and I) are having this whole discussion about God and science boils down to this.
I believe that atheist scientists will not allow for God to exist, let alone to admit that He created the universe, because they view God only through what particular religions have said God is. If religion X seems unbelievable, then God doesn’t exist. They won’t consider the option that God exists even though religion X got some/all of the details wrong.
Moreover, even if we get past religion, and how religious motivations have at times improperly been at the foundation of public policy, these same atheist scientists won’t accept God in theory because as you suggested above, God may have in fact acted with purpose. We may not understand the “purpose” of QM, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use our minds to see other guideposts that relate to things like a God-given moral code (“it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life”.)
Accepting even this moral code would circumscribe some science (such as embryonic stem cell research). So, rather than use science to help settle the question “is that thing inside a woman really human; and if so when?”, this brand of science wants to punt the question all together. It will accept a political compromise to determine when human life begins, but will resist any attempt to state that there is a God, and believing in God has consequences for man’s actions.
Pat:
Professor Johnson is not just a professor, but also a lawyer. As you saw, he was extremely skilled in getting people who were unfamiliar with science to be persuaded to support him, even though he was wrong. Darwin on Trial is presumptuous and ignorant. It is not a valid scientific critique. It is a political and doctrinal document, but, as you saw, Professor Johnson presents his misleading arguments in such a clever manner that only those who actually are actually familiar with the material will see the deceit.
We must always make certain that people like Professor Johnson do not get a pass because they are nice, mild-mannered Presbyterians. I agree with you that his critic failed to take the circumstances into account when he confronted Johnson. As you point out, this backfired and Johnson managed to get a few more people to believe his false claims. His ability to sway people is only in the political or religious spectrum. Scientists are singularly unimpressed with his supposed critique of science in general and evolution in particular.
Of course, the critics of evolution all do so from the safety of popular books and magazine articles. They don’t offer any scientific criticisms in scientific journals. They know that their supposed criticisms cannot be supported in the scientific arena. They know that they are not doing science, that this is about politics and religion. Their ability to mislead through smooth talk and hidden dishonesty works well for them, but it does not absolve them of their dishonesty. Johnson and Dembski lie. They know that. They rely on the ignorance of their audience, just as past masters of deception about science like Duane Gish, did. The whole point is to lie smoothly, with grace and style, to have an audience that is predisposed to believe these lies, and to get the science proponent to lose his cool. “Winning” is about the audience, not about facts, not about logic, not about honesty, not about reality. It’s just about the audience.
Sinclair Lewis thought he was writing an expose, three-quarters of a century ago, in Elmer Gantry. I doubt that he would have expected today’s Elmer Gantries to be using it as a model for their approach to fleecing the flock. I’m certain he would be disappointed to find that it seems to have become a model for them.
It’s amazing to keep seeing this type of argument show up:
“It is not science because it can’t be proved scientifically” – ie. only things provable scientifically are true.
This is EXACTLY like the statement
“The bible is true because the the bible says so”
or
“The scientific method is true because the scientific method says so”.
…. and this is argued by people who don’t realize that their arguments nullify not only the themselves but the arguer as well.
Science, as defined by many here, is NOT the sum of knowledge available to humans… or else every argument here is meaningless noise by chattering animals.
Have any scientists ever claimed that science is the sum total of knowledge? Since I have never seen such an argument, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Certainly assertions about science, like the ones that the Discovery Institute and other creationists make are properly tested through science.
“At the micro level, there are only 6 quarks and only 3 forces. From these, the universe ensues. Don’t know about you, but this seems pretty simple to me.”
Clever, obtuse, simultaneously. Gather the most sophisticated intellectuals you can find, provide them all the resources of facility and information imaginable, and charge them with a simple task: Invent a cosmos, using only these few parts.
Should they succeed, and their universe is amenable to life {unlikely], the result would undoubtedly be the result of “intelligent design”.
In a somewhat more challenging scenario, task them with the invention of these fundamental particles, with no starting point. Theorize the particles and the forces, define how they interact, project them in whatever numbers are required for balance and order. Find a way to make these few into the marvel of a cosmos. Find a way to make them homogeneous, permanent, invariant. The simple act of such conception is beyond human cognizance.
Then comes the real challenge, that being the realization of these fundamentals. Create them, somehow.
We humans, use the word “create” too easily. We create nothing. At best, we assemble and organize. We create no thing. Nor, will we ever.
The evidence of purpose and intelligence is everywhere abundant, yet those closest to the evidence are those most reluctant to endorse it.
“Any person who is convinced that God created the universe, life, etc. or that God did not create the universe, life etc. is professing to know something that can’t be known.”
False.
Knowledge is not the result of adherence to standards of proof. Knowledge, at its best, is no more than conviction. To use the word “known” assumes that knowledge is possible. (Unless the choice is made to conclude that nothing is known, in which case the above statement is superfluous.)
IF one assumes that knowledge is possible and real, and has some correlation to a reality beyond the mind of the one possessing the knowledge, then the proposition takes on meaning.
In that case, the proposition is still false.
There are only two positions.
God created.
No god created (or, god did not create, or, there is no god, or, there was no creation, etc.)
As they are contradictory, both cannot be true. Only one position is valid.
Ergo, those who accept one or the other must be knowledgeable, while those who accept the opposing proposition are ignorant. Some know. Some do not.
If your assertion intended to be that neither is amenable to an acceptable standard of proof, then I must also disagree. The proof is acceptable to a good many folk, on both sides of the question. Or, is it?
On the one side, folk are convinced that their standards of proof have been met. On the other, the standards are not able to be met on either side of the question. In other words, only those who do NOT believe in a creative intelligence are convinced that proof (thus, knowledge) is impossible.
This debate is, therefore, not about truth or knowledge, but about standards of proof. While one side asserts that proof (thus knowledge) is impossible, the other side claims proof exists and is convincing.
There is no evidence that God does not exist. Zero.
There is SOME evidence that He does (a lot, according to many folk).
Some evidence usually trumps no evidence.
If you want PROOF, I suggest you visit Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. He makes a pretty interesting argument that even so basic a “truth” as mathematics is not able to prove itself. Proof, therefore, is elusive.
I repeat, knowledge is a matter of conviction. Some convictions conform to reality, some do not. If the real question is what is “real” and what is NOT “real”, then some DO have knowledge, while others have no more than standards of proof, which are always questionable.
Your assertion is, therefore, invalid. Some know. Some do not.
Standards of proof is the question, not knowledge.
Freelunch: You asked “Have any scientists ever claimed that science is the sum total of knowledge?”
I think the problem is this. Please know that in offering this summary I’m not questioning the motives or sincerity of anyone.
1. Some people in this and previous posts have claimed that what is “real” can only be known through testable observations (i.e. the scientific method). Since God can’t be deduced by tests and direct observations, God is therefore just a superstition, myth, or opinion.
2. However, others who are strong proponents of science have acknowledged that God is real, that He created the universe, and that He can act with purpose. They have come to this position not through the scientific method, but through logic and reason.
3. Some individuals who approach this subject from a non-science perspective have spoken about God in terms of biblical and religious teachings. These religious teachings are the prism through which some of these folks view science.
4. Others, like myself, speak about God without any direct reference to what a particular religion teaches.
Positions 2-4 all acknowledge the existence of God; though they don’t use the same reasoning to reach their conclusions.
Each of these positions is a threat to position #1. If God can be said to be real without science giving us this conclusion, then it’s reasonable to conclude that God can also influence and impact reality in ways that are not directly measurable by the scientific method. This doesn’t mean that God actively injects himself into our daily events. I think Live Free got it right when he said “God created the Universe and imbued it with a few, simple scientific laws. We’ve learned some of them, but have a long way to go before we understand them all … After He created the universe, God let the universe do its own thing. He could easily do that, you know. After all, He is omnipotent.”
Acknowledging that God exists, that God created the universe, and that through science we can comprehend aspects of how the universe functions (including the possibility of human evolution), makes perfect sense. Where science answers the “how” questions, this line of inquiry addresses the “why” questions (“Why did God create the universe and us in it;” “why is X moral and Y immoral,” etc.).
I don’t think that a belief in God — and a purposeful God at that — has to conflict with science. I also don’t believe that science requires us to dismiss God as a factor in creation because God cannot be directly measured and tested. There’s still a lot of room for informed debate about what these two conclusions imply (i.e. how much does God impact our daily lives, if at all?). But accepting that God can be “real” without a scientific proof of His existence is the first step to the common ground that will enhance our search for knowledge and Truth.
My quarrel is with position #1; there is no common ground with positions 2-4. I think a better debate to advance knowledge is to reflect on a universe that was created by God with the implications this carries, than to portray science as inherently godless — which it doesn’t need to be.
“As you know, I’ve not seen a solid case made that we can just automatically reject the notion of mass/energy existing eternally.”
I LOVE this!
Looking for proof, again. Misuse of the word “eternal”.
There is only one way to avoid the first principle of “Cause”. That is, dump science. ALL of science is predicated on causes. Except, of course, for the above pronouncement.
Are you looking for a solid case?
ETERNAL is where there is no time, no beginning or ending, no cause and effect, a place where science has no provenance. INFINITY is where science ventures, without considering the origins of infinity, that being the human imagination. Infinity exists within the construct of mathematics. There is NO evidence of infinity within the cosmos we inhabit. Our universe is closed. Science does not venture into “eternity”. It can not, as the standards of the scientific method require cause and effect.
First principle: All effects have causes. Thus begins science and organized discussion of real reality, adrift from imagination and fantasy.
Yet, when the question of the cause of the big bang comes up, cause becomes crippled. The cause must have a cause, ad infinitum. The creator must have been created. That is logic. Thus begins an infinite regression.
No sidestep. No possibility that “cause” was created when time and dimension and physics and energy were created. Such is a HUGE mental leap. Yet, such appears to be the case.
Nothing. Then something. The big bang. Or, something similar. A beginning.
Such required a cause. The cause required a cause. Intelligence is not intrinsic in this regression, but it is infinite. Yet, infinity has no proof. None. Except in the mind of man.
Infinity terminates at eternity, where cause and effect fail. Time stops. Neither exist. Omniscience is possible where there are no limits. No beginning or ending. Wherever starts and stops exist, all, including knowledge and intelligence, are limited by starting and stopping.
“Automatically reject”? Of course not. You must seek conviction in the group mind of conformity and standards. You must have accord.
Infinity terminates at eternity. Both dramatically exceed human consciousness. Strive though you might, neither shall you touch nor ever apprehend.
“mass/energy existing eternally” indeed. Provide evidence of credulity, if you will. Such a concept is even more extravagant than the concept of creation, and less demonstrable.
If such is able to avoid the “solid case” for “automatic rejection”, why does God do so?
Freelunch wote: “Sinclair Lewis thought he was writing an expose, three-quarters of a century ago, in Elmer Gantry.”
Sinclair Lewis also wrote, in 1935, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Phil:
“Science without a recognition of God produces an incomplete understanding of Truth, just as a focus on God to the exclusion of science produces an incomplete understanding of Truth.”
The essence of our agreement.
“But in creating the universe and letting it ‘do it’s own thing’, this doesn’t mean that evolution, proceeding along the natural scientific laws that God created, couldn’t have a bias toward creating human life the way it has presently evolved. The bias is so fundamental and, to the human mind incomprehensible, that we can only see randomness.”
The current theory of evolution unsatisfies. Like you, I believe there is “a bias towards creating human life” in the universe, and that this ‘bias’ is a scientific law not yet discovered. At our current level of intelligence and consciousness, we can’t apprehend this law. However, as we evolve (either nature-directed or man-directed) towards higher levels of consciousness, we very well might begin to understand the underlying — and simple — order in the universe.
“What ID has done for me…”
Since I attended a Jesuit university, I have a minor in Theology. For me, ID is warmed-over crap that impugns both science and religion.
“So, rather than use science to help settle the question ‘is that thing inside a woman really human; and if so when?” this brand of science (ie, atheistic science) wants to punt the question altogether. It will accept a political compromise to determine when human life begins, but will resist any attempt to state that there is a God, and believing in God has consequences for man’s actions.”
You and other essayists on this site have compellingly argued that morality is provisional — even ruthlessly postmodern — unless an eternal and infinite God begat morality. This is a truth that can be accepted by both theists and atheists since the former believe that an absolute morality comes from God while the latter functionally believe in a postmodern universe where everything is relative.
Therefore, out goes the Declaration of Independence, out goes the Bill of Rights, and out goes any and all laws. Out go individual liberties and civil rights. Out goes the sanctity of life. Out goes everything.
OK, I going to wear atheistic shoes. My first pronouncement is that Hitler’s Holocaust was an expression of the highest morality. Since there is no absolute moral code, I could be right.
Atheists can’t argue that the Holocaust was absolutely immoral. They can’t by definition.
Is morality, then, simply the majority consensus in the eternal present? Yes, that’s all it is.
If atheists are intellectually honest re their belief that morality is not absolute, then they must admit that, sometimes, serial murderers have done no wrong; else, they are professing that, sometimes, morality is absolute.
Of course, atheists shun metaphysical thinking of this genre. After all, since science is the ultimate pragmatism (ie, science is true only if it works), they dismiss pretty much all modes of rationality except common sense.
But science is not the ultimate pragmatism. As you pointed out, Phil, politics is. Therefore, they must agree that the best arena to decide issues of morality is the political arena.
With the decoupling of constitutional law from original principles and the infusion of postmodernistic thought into the law, atheists would also embrace deciding issues of morality in the courts. They’ve debased the courts and converted them into political arenas, anyway. Functionally, there are zero degrees of separation, anymore, between the courts and the Iowa caucuses. Aaah. The atheist’s heaven.
If all this is true, then the Declaration of Independence is untrue. I think that the Declaration of Independence is still the most radical political document ever written. Without a God as absolute lawgiver, however, it’s null and void.
zealot144.
Intelligent Design works as religion, but not as science.
Of course, God created the universe. Of course, by definition, science doesn’t even try to answer metaphysical or religions questions.
No, we can’t recreate this universe. Duh. We’re not God.
As I asked Phil, please formulate your scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Base it upon all available scientific evidence. Discuss how your theory is superior to the theory of evolution. Detail the lab tests you’ve conducted which affirm your theory. Propose how your theory is falsifiable. Describe new phenomena not yet observed, but which your theory predicts. iow, do the science.
zealot144:
“There are only two positions… God created… No god created (or, god did not create, or, there is no god, or, there was no creation, etc.)”
But, you presume that the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie, in one form, “A thing must either be or not be”) is true. For “presume”, substitute “leap of faith”.
As a thought experiment, let’s deny the truth of the Law of the Excluded Middle. If it’s untrue, there could be a third possibility (or a fourth, fifth, …) to the 2 you stated above.
zealot144:
“First principle: All effects have causes.”
No, not in the Quantum Dynamic realm. There, probability, chance, and randomness rule.
Einstein understood the implications of QM (“God does not play dice with the universe”), and tried to prove that its abnegation of cause-and-effect was false. Einstein failed. So has science. Since Einstein’s death, every experiment conducted to test Einstein’s order vs QM’s chaos has affirmed the truth of QM.
Now that you understand that there is no cause and effect, perhaps you’d like to rewrite your post.
Phil:
My Christmas present to you (a response post) is hung up in the filter. I’ll keep trying.
zealot144 – LiveFreeDieFree has pointed out a few issues with your post, but I’d like to ask a couple more questions:
1. You state: “There is NO evidence of infinity within the cosmos we inhabit” and then go on to state that “when the question of the cause of the big bang comes up… [t]he cause must have a cause, ad infinitum… Thus begins an infinite regression.” Are you saying that we do have evidence of infinity in that sense? Or are you assuming that an infinite regression is impossible? If so, what justifies that assumption? Most people don’t seem to have problems with infinite progressions…
2. I guess you do reject an infinite regression (again, why?) because you assert “Nothing. Then something. The big bang.” As LiveFreeDieFree noted, science has only pushed back understanding close to, but not actually at, the big bang. What do you use to justify the principle that there was ‘nothing’ before the big bang? I don’t see how you established that.
3. You state that “Infinity terminates at eternity, where cause and effect fail.” I think you’re going to have to define your terms here. Infinity doesn’t terminate, at least by the definitions I’m familiar with. I don’t recall you actually establishing that cause and effect fail anywhere, so I’m not sure how you justify that leap.
4. You ask, “‘mass/energy existing eternally’ indeed. Provide evidence of credulity, if you will.” Well, it’s passed every practical test we can come up with. We have never seen net creation or destruction of mass/energy. What ‘evidence of credulity’ do you have that mass/energy can be created? (I also don’t see what standards you’re using to judge the notion “more extravagant” than God…)
5. If I may speculate a bit, you appear (and please correct me if I’m wrong) to be using standard, ‘common sense’ notions of causality, time, and so forth. That’s entirely understandable, but I’ve made the point over and over again that those intuitions are not reliable outside of the environment humans arose in. The heliocentric solar system, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics – heck, even the round Earth – were all genuine, counterintuitive surprises. We haven’t seen any other universes being created, so we haven’t tested any common-sense notions of universe creation yet. I’d be cautious (as, indeed, scientists are) about extrapolating beyond what we can test.
LiveFreeDieFree – You declare that “Atheists can’t argue that the Holocaust was absolutely immoral. They can’t by definition.”
Apparently your definitions don’t match mine:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/12/universal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe/
The most fundamental, bedrock principle in science, without which it would have no reason to exist, is that for every effect, their is a cause. Nature conforms to laws that are immutable; there are causes and effects, actions and reactions. The observation of effects and the explanation of cause is the job of science. Arbitrariness or randomness negates science and confounds reason. This, incidentally, was the gist of Pope Benedicts Regensberg address, which I recoimmend everyone read. (I left the typo in there so Ray has something to pick on) :)
Einstein understood this and was correct. Eventually, if they do not resort to the randomness cop-out, physicists will find these answers as well.
Anyone who maintains that Darwinism is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is not must consider the fundamental difference between the two:
Darwinism observed what it saw as the evolution of species, but since it has thus far been unable to explain its cause (the how of it, not just the why), Darwinists resorted to calling it “random mutation.” The fact remains that randomness is not a scientific explanation; it is a cop-out. It is an admission of defeat. Just because science has thus far been unable to pinpoint specific causation for certain physical phenomena does not mean those explanations do not exist; we just haven’t found them yet. Randomness is not the final answer: it is a substitute for the final answer.
Likewise Intelligent Design observes the same phenomena and suggests or hypothesizes that their was design rather than randomness. This is the only difference between the two: randomness vs. design. Thus, either they are both legitimate scientific theories, or neither one is legitimate science. You cannot have it both ways.
Randomness is not science, but its negation.
Darwinists are unwilling to concede design not because it is unscientific, but because they have an aversion to God and religion.
Let me put this another way:
Suppose mankind wipes itself out in some cataclysm and, a million years later, some advanced race lands on earth and discovers the PC on which I am typing. Would it be more scientific for them to theorize that some intelligent agent designed and built this highly complex machine for a purpose or that the machine, completely at random and for no apparent reason, designed and assembled itself? Which of these two hypothoses is more or less scientific?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting the purpose (the why) is scientifically knowable or testable, that is a question answerable only by philosophy and theology, not science. But the how is a question of science.
To suggest randomness is not only unscientific, it is anti-scientific.
“But science is not the ultimate pragmatism. As you pointed out, Phil, politics is. Therefore, they must agree that the best arena to decide issues of morality is the political arena.”
*** Life Free — you captured the atheist mind set very well. One slight addition to your comments, though.
Politics is indeed where we decide issues, even moral ones. But that outcome/decision is not inherently “moral”. Politics decided that certain people were not fully human (slavery). That was a political compromise that was, at best, wrapped in a morally-relative rationalization.
Morality — that which is inherently “right” vs “wrong” — cannot be the product of human consensus. Otherwise, the UN would be the fountainhead of human morality.
Enjoyed the exchange. Have a great Christmas. Phil
Mr. Osonitsch: First, I hope the smiley indicates you saw comment #117. Second, I think you are, like Einstein, telling God what to do. I strongly suggest you read up on Bell’s Theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem – in a nutshell, QM really is highly counterintutive, and it seems very unlikely that the randomness and weirdness in it will be resolved in a way you seem to expect.
Your other comments regarding evolution are related – you essentially use Paley’s “watchmaker” argument. The problem with that is that watches and computers are highly unlike living things in a critical aspect – watches and computers do not reproduce, with occasional errors. (For an interesting thought-experiment along these lines, you might look at the science-fiction book “Code of the Life-Maker” by James Hogan.)
Highly complex non-reproducing items do not self-assemble spontaneously – that’s true and no one disputes that. But reproducing items, with small errors, can and do generate more and more complexity – in small jumps. We know this in lots of different way from lots of different lines of evidence, but I personally have played with this process and seen it in action: http://ingles.homeunix.net/software/minev/intro.html
(A book-length treatment of this principle is “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Dawkins.)
Raymond:
Just a short take. I need to digest the discussion between you and Phil to respond more substantively.
Sure, we can derive (extrapolate, induct) a moral code using the way evolution operates as a basis, but said moral code will have the same limitation that all other rationally-based systems do: It is not absolute. Why not? Well, it can’t be.
My field is math and computers. In a nutshell, mathematicians have ‘proven’ that mathematics does not address absolute truth, although many mathematicians are loathe to admit so. That’s their problem. Science, too, has severe limitations, and basically addresses pragmatic rather than absolute truths.
If math and science are provisional, postmodern, and contigent, how can any moral code derived from evolution be an absolute? The answer: It can’t.
You seem to use the word ‘universal’ rather than ‘absolute’. But, universal for whom? Evolution may operate quite differently on alien worlds. There, Hitler may be the paragon of good, and Mother Theresa the paragon of evil.
In any case, I think and believe Phil is right: An absolute moral code requires a God as law-giver.
I’ll grant you that we can induct a pretty damned good moral code without interjecting a God into our analysis. Sociobiology is one such dynamite tool. However, this moral code by definition must be provisional, postmodern, and contingent; else, you end up with the infinite regression fallacy you attribute to zealot144.
Hopefully, more later.
“The problem with that is that watches and computers are highly unlike living things in a critical aspect – watches and computers do not reproduce, with occasional errors”
[This post suggests that ERRORS lead to improvement and an increase of information content. Is this what you truly propose? Is this the consensus of the evolutionist community? I think it is. The absurdity of it must be obvious. ]
Paley’s argument does appear to suffer from the mistake you note, as does yours. Yours fails to question the beginning of life, the programming of DNA, and the origins of the fundamental order and harmony that permit these. In other words, where from is reproduction? What is the origin of origin? Watches do not mate. Molecules do not mate. Life does. Where from, and how and why?
The dice were rolled at some point. Life emerged, carrying what is rapidly being recognized as a very complicated and remarkably simple (would that equal subtle?) blueprinting process. Indeed, it appears that atomic physics cooperates with the plans.
You begin your search and explanation long after the architect has left the room. Paley’s comparison fails not because watches do not replicate. Instead, it fails because a watch is simpler than many of the individual molecules that constitute a living organism. To compare a watch to an entire living creature on the order of a bird or an ape is akin to comparing a cave illustration to a modern CGI intensive film. Indeed, the leap is far greater than that.
The modern naturalist views the bricks of the universe as pieces of a puzzle, while never questioning the origins of those pieces or the fortuitous balances they represent. They just “are”. A naturalist will even consider that there could only be one way for them to be, while never wondering the why of that. Why could they not be different? Why could they not be imbalanced? They would not have persevered if they were different, but, what is the why of that?
To assert that such questions go beyond the purview of science does no more than communicate the limitations of scientific inquiry and scientific method. To never wonder at the very fundaments of reality is to build an intellectual boundary. To deny this wonder in the name of science is unconscionable.
Scientific perspective is the limit.
Religion may not provide the answer, but it offers no such limits.
To conceive the human mind and the hive awareness of science as the limits of reality is the worst of hubris. Reality exceeds both. Some of us acknowledge this. Some of us do not.
livefreediefree:
“Intelligent Design works as religion, but not as science.”
I concur. I dispute the limitations of science. Science works for science, but is does not work for reality. You ask me to join you in your limited pursuits. I refuse. I respect science. I respect my computer and the medicine that gives me longevity. I have no beef with science.
But, no scientist created me. No scientist initiated the cosmos. Do you not see this? You observe what has happened. You view history. You quantify it and characterize it. Yet, you seem to never question how that history exists, much less how it began. You ask me to join your limited view. I refuse.
“But, you presume that the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie, in one form, “A thing must either be or not be”) is true. For “presume”, substitute “leap of faith”.”
Sophistry? Your scientific perspective fails if the middle is not excluded. “It is, or it is not” form the basis of the scientific mind and scientific method. Your data shows agreement, or it does not. Your theory has support, or it does not.
The middle ground is inhabited by “both”. To hit you in the kneecap with a base ball bat is either “kind” or it is not. Per some eastern mysticisms, a thing can be both of contradicting ideas simultaneously. To hit you in the kneecap with the ball bat might be both kind and cruel. If you learned a lesson from this act that saved you future harm of far greater consequence, the act might be considered kind. To most, it would seem cruel.
Is this the middle ground you refer to? Is this germane?
Piff!
Either an intelligent designer did so, or one does not exist.
I throw your challenge back at you: If one does not exist, AND one does not “not exist”, please describe the middle ground. OR, if one DOES exist, while also NOT existing. The nonexistent nonintelligence that does not create that does exist while being simultaneously nonexistent. I think I have lost count of my “nons”.
Are you daft? Do you hope to catch me in stupidity? Or, do you acknowledge the frailty of your position and choose silliness as argument? Which?
“Einstein understood the implications of QM (”God does not play dice with the universe”)”
Interesting that you would choose a quote that includes the concept of God. Einstein, BTW, disputed QM, initially, because it retreated from his calm understanding of reality. I think that he suddenly realized what I am trying to communicate, and you are rejecting: The cosmos is anti-logical. But, it is here. And, it works.
The comfortable stuff you find as the basis of your logic is somewhat insubstantial. Unless, of course, you dump the cause thing and buy the “I saw it thing”. Then, you lose. You do not see all. No one does. You adhere to the “I saw it” thing. “I saw electrons go backwards in time!”. Good for you!
QM does not alter the basis of logic and formative realization. If it did, science would collapse. QM describes the verities of time and direction, something I have been arguing for some (time? Distance? location? VeCtOr?). Primacy is not challenged by QM. QM is the RESULT.
Find what started QM. I wish you luck. Sincerely.
“Darwinists are unwilling to concede design not because it is unscientific, but because they have an aversion to God and religion. ” – Jeff Osonitsch
Theists argue, “The cosmos is far too complex to have arisen by pure chance, thus it must have been intelligently designed. We call this designer God.” The problem with this design inference is obvious: Any designer capable of crafting something as complex as the cosmos surely also is complex enough to require its own designer. Indeed any designer, by definition, would have to be complex; the very act of “designing” requires the presence of a mind. This is because design, by definition, is planning/executing something with a specific goal with respect to the end result. Mind, the only entity capable of design work, simply is too complex to arise by pure chance [Remember, this is the dichotomy with which creationists present us, pure chance versus design. Working from their own (I would argue false) dichotomy, mind requires design, and thus designers require design.] Note: Natural Selection does not constitute design because Natural Selection never works toward a specified end goal. It takes what it can get at stage one, without regard to what might happen at stage nine.
So now we conclude that our complex – by virtue of its mind – intelligent designer also must have been designed (since it is too statistically improbable that mind would arise by pure chance). In reaching this conclusion, all I am doing is applying the design inference uniformly and accepting the creationists’ own dichotomy of pure chance versus design. Continuing logically then, the Super designer of the original intelligent designer also must have been designed. That work must have been done by a Supreme intelligent designer, who again, by virtue of the presence of its mind, must too be the product of design [Remember, design work only can be done by a mind, and a mind - given our accepted creationist dichotomy - must be the product of design, since it statistically could not arise by pure chance.] This reasoning dooms us to an infinite regress wherein every designer, each of whom possesses a mind, would need its own designer in turn.
zealot144:
My 3 response posts to you were neither logically cohesive nor bullet-proof. They did elicit a response from you, though. Thus, mission accomplished.
Your posts (#’s 124, 125, 127, & 142) merit serious attention. Let’s start at the beginning.
In #125, you said: “In other words, only those who do NOT believe in a creative intelligence are convinced that proof (thus, knowledge) is impossible.”
In my response, I alluded to the Law of the Excluded Middle but suggested that it may not posit an absolute truth; specifically, that there may be a ‘middle’ alternative to such rudimentary formulations of the law as “A thing must either be or not be.” My proof? That “Cogito ergo sum” is the one & only absolute truth we know. Thus, we must question all other supposed absolute truths, including the Law of the Excluded Middle.
However, this essay is not the best venue to discuss the limits of rationality. Alan Roebuck’s The Scientific Leftists of the Center For Inquiry essay is. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry/. So, dismiss any comments I posted here specifically re the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Back to what you said. You posited a false dichotomy. It is possible to both believe in God and be convinced that proof (thus, knowledge) is impossible.
Not to belabor a point, but I have a hunch that all dichotomies are false, including ultimate ones like existence vs non-existence, but, as I said, that’s another story.
You continued #125’s theme in #142: “I dispute the limitations of science… I respect science.”
Voila. You thus confirmed my suspicion or intuition; specifically, that your arguments need proofs and knowledge to be absolute. Actually, kudos. A very intriguing though flawed contention.
Continuing with #142: “Sophistry? Your scientific perspective fails if the middle is not excluded.”
True, but I accept the severe limitations of a science that requires the excluded middle. You don’t.
Continuing: “Either an intelligent designer did so, or one does not exist. I throw your challenge back at you: If one does not exist, AND one does not ‘not exist’, please describe the middle ground.”
Damn it. You won’t let go, will you? NP. This ain’t the proper venue, but what the hell.
How does God apprehend the universe? Using dichotomies that rely upon the Law of the Excluded Middle? I think not.
Let’s start with the basics. Does God apprehend non-existence? Are you kidding? How could He? After all, God is eternal and infinite. How could there be anything ‘beyond’ eternity and infinity? Thus, God does not apprehend non-existence. Ergo, the most rudimentary form of the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie, a thing either is or is not) is untrue for God.
How do we resolve this conundrum? To posit that nothingness is a state of being. Thus, if & when God imagines any impossibility ‘beyond’ eternity and infinity, His conceiving of it creates it. It subsequently becomes encapsulated by and in eternity and infinity. In essence, non-being becomes being. Non-existence exists, but only for a timeless period; ie, never.
No more musings on this subject, OK? This is not the proper venue.
“QM does not alter the basis of logic and formative realization. If it did, science would collapse.”
Strictly, you’re right. QM did not spell the formal death knell of the rationally-knowable absolute. Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” in metaphysics and Cantor’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics did. However, QM was the pastor at the grave site, intoning the rites before absolute truth finally died.
Of course, science had already admitted its provisionality. The Scientific Method is inductive. At best, it posits that a scientific theory ‘explains’ only observed phenomena. It makes no claim about phenomena not yet observed except to categorically state that new phenomena might invalidate the theory.
“QM describes the verities of time and direction, something I have been arguing for some (time? Distance? location? VeCtOr?). Primacy is not challenged by QM.”
I empathize. Words fail.
I agree, as long as we mutually define ‘primacy’ to be “the absence of cause-and-effect”.
Do the nearly-absolute limitations of rationality imply that God exists? No. How can perfection arise from imperfection? To reiterate: In mathematical terms, the imperfect set cannot contain the imperfect set. Whether or not the perfect set can contain the imperfect set is a question best left for another discussion.
Oops. Typo. In last paragraph, “The imperfect set cannot contain the perfect set.”
zealot144 – Yes, indeed, errors occasionally “lead to improvement and an increase of information content”. Can you state categorically that you have never, ever gotten the right answer on a test for the wrong reason? Did you examine the second link in the comment you were responding to? Beneficial mutations in biological systems are indeed rare; but they do happen (there are documented cases).
As to the origin of life – read the third paragraph of comment #12 above. Oh, and the last paragraph, too.
LiveFreeDieFree – You ask, “If math and science are provisional, postmodern, and conti[n]gent, how can any moral code derived from evolution be an absolute? The answer: It can’t.”
That’s true… and, in fine ‘postmodern’ tradition, it’s false, too. My analysis was restricted to humans, and I explicitly acknowledged that in the article (just count how many times the word ‘human’ appears). But the core of my thesis was that “Given what humans are, and what kind of universe they inhabit, some types of behavior and some courses of action are wiser choices than others.”
Other living things, aliens on other worlds, may have different morals. Perhaps in some sense a flu virus is behaving ‘morally’ by its lights as it infects people (though morals would imply a level of choice not likely to be present in a virus). But so long as humans are humans, and inhabit this universe, there will be human morals.
Now, ‘what kind of universe humans inhabit’ is not a completely settled issue yet, that’s true. It may never be completely settled. But to try to say that implies there are no absolutes strikes me as almost disingenuous. Despite Einstein and Newton making radically different predictions in many areas, the vast majority of human engineering is still thoroughly Newtonian. Even NASA still uses Newton’s laws (with a few fudge factors) to pilot its space probes through the solar system. On a human scale, the differences between Relativistic and Newtonian dynamics are almost immeasurable.
Our technology changes the environment humans live in, but hasn’t yet fundamentally changed what it means to be human. Individual technological changes affect morality somewhat (earlier prohibitions on mutilating the dead don’t bother most people now with respect to organ donation, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are nearly alone in refusing blood transfusions) but I can’t think of an example offhand that isn’t a ‘corner case’.
Sure, math and science aren’t ‘absolute’. But what odds do you want that the sun won’t come up tomorrow? C’mon, you put up $20 on the sun not rising in the East tomorrow (we can agree on a suitable definition of ‘sunrise’, I’m sure)… how much do you want me to put up to make the bet worthwhile? (Am I likely to have that much money?)
There’s a difference between what you might call ‘formal’ absolutes and ‘practical absolutes. I at least attempted to ground my case in ‘practical’ absolutes. I must acknowledge that if our understanding of the universe (or of human nature) drastically changed, then I’d be forced to change my conclusions. However, I’m… doubtful of that actually happening in a morally-significant way.
Raymond Ingles commented: “On a human scale, the differences between Relativistic and Newtonian dynamics are almost immeasurable.”
Almost…but there are everyday examples. For instance, the element mercury is a liquid rather than a solid because of relativistic dynamics – see http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/why-is-mercury-liquid.shtml (among others).
Similarly, the element gold is its unique color because of relativistic dynamics – see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/gold_color.html (among others).
(There are even two different books titled Relativistic Effects in Chemistry.)
I am inclined to downplay the frustration I feel when reading the majority of the posts in this discussion so far due to the well reasoned and completely unanswered objections of Mr. Alan Roebuck.
True, Mr. Burnett attempts a response (#88); however in the end he does nothing more than begs the very important question that Mr. Roebuck posed.
Another individual, Mr(Ms.?) Wiggy articulates what may be a knee jerk response to the arguments raised, and I feel certain that had others in this thread bothered with reading Alan’s posts, they would probably respond in similar fashion (which would subject their replies to the same savage criticism of Wiggy’s position that Alan demonstrated in post #53.)
Indeed the only way for the supporters of a naturalistic metaphysical view of reality (and any theories derived from that foundation, including evolution) to avoid these self refuting contradictions, is by giving up their naturalism.
Such is the true metaphysical nature of this debate, and seeing Alan’s post which recognized this, was like a fresh gust of wind in a chicken house. For those opposing the Evolutionary theory, (in any of its forms) to accept at the outset of the discussion the philosophical premises of your opponent is not only inconsistent philosophy, it is potentially dishonorable before God almighty whom you (presumably) are attempting to defend, (even if such a nasty little secret has yet to be acknowledged.)
Given the truth of naturalism, I would be inclined to agree with the arguments against ID so far presented, and in that case, I say that positing a “God of the Gaps” argument, would indeed be fallacious and unnecessary. However, we have yet to see any arguments in favor of the truth of any form of naturalistic worldview; it has so far just been arbitrarily assumed.
I as a Christian would propose that any naturalistic metaphysical theory ultimately invalidates itself, and therefore, any conclusions based on such a theory (like the popular form of evolution being discussed) would also ultimately be invalid. If I am right in that proposition, then evolution is only valid as far as it accepts the non contradictory philosophical premises posited in the Christian worldview. (Not that I am claiming any form of theistic evolution is compatible with Biblical text, as many books can show to be impossible, merely that whatever degree of philosophical “soundness” evolution does hold, depends on the degree of conformity with the Christian worldview.)
Would anyone like to respond to my proposition, or the far better articulated posts of Mr. Roebuck?
Mr. Burnett – Even magnetism itself is a relativistic effect. (That’s one good measure of a scientific theory – relativity, like evolution, explains a lot of things outside its original domain.) But the special properties of lodestones have been known for thousands of years, and relativity simply offered up a deeper understanding of the phenomena, it didn’t invent entirely new phenomena of itself. The kind of universe humans inhabit, particularly in a day-to-day sense, has changed drastically over the last hundred thousand years. And yet, in fundamental ways, it hasn’t – people still form an essential part of our environment; the seven deadly sins may have changed some of the ways they are expressed but they are still bad ideas.