David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, wrote in an editorial entitled “The Age of Darwin” that evolution has become the “unifying grand narrative” of the modern age. [2007]
Quotes and comments;
1. "And it occurred to me that while we postmoderns say we detest all-explaining narratives, in fact a newish grand narrative has crept upon us willy-nilly and is now all around. Once the Bible shaped all conversation, then Marx, then Freud, but today Darwin is everywhere....
According to this view, human beings, like all other creatures, are machines for passing along genetic code. We are driven primarily by a desire to perpetuate ourselves and our species....''
- Human beings aren't machines Mr. Brooks. Not even close. The idea man is a machine for passing on code is the most idiotic idea anyone has ever dreamed up. This is just an analogy of course; and a misleading one. Machines are tools invented by human beings, to do work. It would be more accurate to call evolutionary theory a machine, than it is to call human beings machines. (In this case the 'work' would be to eradicate Christianity.)
- Gee David; I thought postmoderns denied the existence of truth. What's this 'truth' you're talking about?
- evolution isn't a 'newish' narrative at all; as even school children should know. It's been around for at least 2 thousand years. (But apparently PMs aren't big on reading books; at least not history books.)
- Look around NY sometime Mr. Brooks. Do you see people driven primarily by a desire to reproduce themselves? Give me a break.
- note that an important (to say the least) implication of what Brooks (or the genes that use him for a mouthpiece) is saying; the inescapable implication is that life is an illusion. (So then we have 'science' not revealing the truth, or reality, but telling us life is an illusion created for us by some genes.)
2. "Evolution doesn’t really lead to anything outside itself. Individuals are predisposed not by innate sinfulness or virtue, but by the epigenetic rules encoded in their cells.''
- we might wonder how he knows this, but let's ask him a question; ''why then do some people affirm atheism (materialism) and some affirm creation?" (And why are they so bothered by the debate over origins?) And why are you taking time out from procreating to tell us this?
- you speak of code. Let's talk about code then. Even if what you say is true, who wrote this code? who programmed these rules into human beings?
Notes;
1. Reference article; Creation - Evolution Headlines 4/27/2007
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Materialism and the death of Reason
Materialism and the death of reason
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature.
- There are many problems with the materialist/evolutionary view of man; and one of the biggest is the question of 'what is reason'? Materialists like to use the word reason, and do so with reckless abandon - but what is it? Recent research in neurobiology makes the old problem much deeper, much more complicated. If there is no mind, as many Materialists now claim, and all we have is the 'firing' of neurons, what is reason? We don't hear many attempts at answering this question.
- The argument against Christianity (so popular among tenured professors) and creation is usually couched as an argument from 'reason' against 'superstition' - so if there is no such thing as reason this 'argument' falls flat on its face.
- So we ask the materialist, what is this 'reason' you keep talking about? We really need an answer on this... but I don't think materialists have one. (Is it just the bile of the brain as some have said? If so, why should anyone pay any attention to this bile?)
Again we see how the 'new atheism' hasn't been able to integrate the new findings from scientific research. It's really a worldview that is very old; and one rooted in a non-intelligent view of the universe. (i.e. in a view that doesn't require intelligent design.)
Notes;
1. Reference; Questions to Ask a Reductionist Neurobiologist 03/21/2007 (Evolution and Creation Headlines)
'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature last week.
2. Definitions of reason;
A. 'the capacity to reflect, analyze and think in an orderly and logical manner as opposed to an Irrational and Emotional manner. - Hexham
B. 'The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. - FOLDOP
- if this is what we mean by reason; then if you accept the claims of the evolutionary neurobiogists, reason doesn't exist. (And it's just another victim of reductionism.)
3. A brief example of 'neuro talk' (by Buzsaki)
“The interaction and interference of multiple brain rhythms often gives rise to the appearance of ‘noise’ in an electroencephalogram. This noise is the most complex type known to physics and reflects a metastable state between the predictable behavior of oscillators and the unpredictability of chaos.”
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature.
- There are many problems with the materialist/evolutionary view of man; and one of the biggest is the question of 'what is reason'? Materialists like to use the word reason, and do so with reckless abandon - but what is it? Recent research in neurobiology makes the old problem much deeper, much more complicated. If there is no mind, as many Materialists now claim, and all we have is the 'firing' of neurons, what is reason? We don't hear many attempts at answering this question.
- The argument against Christianity (so popular among tenured professors) and creation is usually couched as an argument from 'reason' against 'superstition' - so if there is no such thing as reason this 'argument' falls flat on its face.
- So we ask the materialist, what is this 'reason' you keep talking about? We really need an answer on this... but I don't think materialists have one. (Is it just the bile of the brain as some have said? If so, why should anyone pay any attention to this bile?)
Again we see how the 'new atheism' hasn't been able to integrate the new findings from scientific research. It's really a worldview that is very old; and one rooted in a non-intelligent view of the universe. (i.e. in a view that doesn't require intelligent design.)
Notes;
1. Reference; Questions to Ask a Reductionist Neurobiologist 03/21/2007 (Evolution and Creation Headlines)
'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature last week.
2. Definitions of reason;
A. 'the capacity to reflect, analyze and think in an orderly and logical manner as opposed to an Irrational and Emotional manner. - Hexham
B. 'The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. - FOLDOP
- if this is what we mean by reason; then if you accept the claims of the evolutionary neurobiogists, reason doesn't exist. (And it's just another victim of reductionism.)
3. A brief example of 'neuro talk' (by Buzsaki)
“The interaction and interference of multiple brain rhythms often gives rise to the appearance of ‘noise’ in an electroencephalogram. This noise is the most complex type known to physics and reflects a metastable state between the predictable behavior of oscillators and the unpredictability of chaos.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)