What is life?

I'm watching the video series 'The Origin of Life' by Robert Hazen, and have a few comments to make on the third lecture.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'One of my favorite books on OOL studies is 'Biogenesis' by Nathan Lahav. In the book Lahav gives 48 different definitions of life... and none of them agree. [1.]

The list could be expanded many times I'm sure.
- Isn't it possible that the reason they can't figure out how 'life' could spontaneously occur is because life doesn't exist, that it's an abstraction? In the creationist view, life doesn't exist, but rather particular living organisms exist. Since none of them could have spontaneously occurred, this means they they had to have an intelligent source. [2.]

B. Hazen says many OOL people think (imagine) the first life on earth was nothing like what we have today.

- Well; that makes their theories hard to refute doesn't it? How could you refute any of these stories?

C. Most OOL 'workers' imagine the first life did not incorporate DNA, he tells us.

- We can see that as an admission DNA could not have spontaneously arisen.

D. The first life form may not even have used protein he says.

- Again; this is impossible to refute... and an admission proteins couldn't have spontaneously arisen.

E. The first life form must have arisen from chemical reactions he says.

- I see nothing in chemicals that predicts life forms and genetic code.

F. He ends up falling back on the old strategy of claiming the distinction between life and non-life is a false dichotomy.

- This is a way of doing away with the need to account for the origin of life; but it ends up requiring a belief in panpsychism.

G. His whole theory depends upon making the seemingly impossible possible by breaking it down into a great many minute steps. (This is the model Charles Darwin used with biology.)

- It seems to me that m.s are trying to solve the problem by breaking it down into so many 'steps' as to make each one seem possible... and thus make the whole chain of (supposed) events possible.

H. He talks about chemical evolution before life forms arose; but this term strikes me as an oxymoron or an equivocation. i.e. evolution as normally understood requires reproduction.

I. Most of this imagined history (of the early earth) is lost he tells us.

- And how are we going to refute that? I thought Hazen told us science has to be observable in his 'Joy of Science' series. If all this 'history' was never observed and is lost, how can we possibly know if the stories OOL people tell us are true. [3.]

J. The evidence that OOL people need to give a materialist account of creation all disappeared he tells us.

- Well, maybe; but it seems a tad convenient. This then, is the flimsy foundation on which modern evolutionary theory is built. ie. a house without a foundation... a house with a foundation that was eaten away and has disappeared... in other words, an invisible foundation, a foundation of theory.

K. There's no place to draw a line in this series of steps where non-life becomes life he tells us. (He earlier drew parallels to debates as to when human life begins in the womb, and to when a person is really dead.)

- This model of origins ignores the real question in my opinion; which is where did the information we see in living forms come from? His model requires (it seems to me) that this information was somehow 'hidden' in inert matter. I see no evidence this is true.
- This particular defense of spontaneous emergence is largely a matter of rhetoric. (It's an old game; played by the ancient Greeks. e.g. there's no absolute border between justice and injustice, etc.) We can present the matter more simply however. We can ask is a human being alive? is a rock dead? the answers seem pretty obvious to most of us. Is there a difference between crystal and DNA? He's playing games here; trying to avoid problems for his theory by confusing the issue.

L. He ends up telling us the question what is life is merely a matter of semantics. (I kid you not.) I guess that means something is alive if someone says it is. I guess all we have to do to find life on Mars is to define some thing or other on the planet as alive.

Notes;
1. The Origin of Life - Robert Hazen (Teaching Company) lecture #3. What is Life?
- I'm paraphrasing Hazen, not giving exact quotes.
2. This doesn't mean that all organisms now extant on earth were directly created, but that they are descendents of organisms that were directly created.
3. Hazen ends his lecture by saying 'science is based on observations of the living world.' (Was he listening to himself when he said this :=)
3. Aren't OOL studies a waste of time? Aren't they an exercise in myth making?
4. The definition of life adopted by NASA has 3 components; a. life must be a chemical system; b. must be self sustaining (gathering energy and atoms from its surroundings; i.e. metabolism); c. all living things must display some sort of variation (sometimes referred to as being able to undergo Darwinian evolution)
- we have no universal definition of life he says..
5. What is life? In the bible we read that Christ is life. (i.e. this isn't a what question, but a who question.)

A revolution in the mind sciences

Today I'd like to discuss a lecture given by B. Alan Wallace called 'Toward the first revolution in the mind sciences'. It was a talk delivered at Google headquarters. (So you know it has to be both important and good.)

Quotes and comments;

A. B. Alan Wallace (lecture at Google) [1.] mocks the clerics for not looking through Galileo's telescope. (If you can believe the story.) I think he's overly harsh here. Let's remember that the telescope had just been invented (let's ignore speculation the ancients had the telescope)... so it shouldn't strike us as that bizarre. People were utterly unfamiliar with such an instrument. If G. was the first true scientist (in a modern sense) it's not shocking that most people didn't think as he did.
- I'm just giving rough notes I made during the lecture. (Be kind.)

He chastises them for not thinking they needed to look (i.e. investigate it for themselves) Fine; but how many people in our day think they need to investigate Darwinism for themselves? Not many... they just accept the dogma of the day and move on. ie. why look at it? you might find some 'shadows' and imperfections in what is claimed to be a perfect theory...

- how many people in our day have looked at the stars through a telescope? not very many I would think :=)

B. W. critiques academics and scientists for materialist ideas that deny the mind. "How could such intelligent people believe such idiotic ideas?" he says. (i.e. denying the mind or consciousness exists; refusing to talk of mind, emotions, etc.) I agree with him here; but not in his defense of Darwinism. I think academics are as wrong about Darwin as the behaviorists (e.g. Watson, Skinner) were about the mind. He celebrates empirical observation... but where is the observation of macroevolution? There isn't any. ie. we don't ever see any... that's our observation. When people claim this is a fact, they're letting dogma triumph over observation.

- when our professors (the clerics of our day) refuse to look at the fossil rocks in the way offered by young earth creationists they are in effect saying we don't want to look at the data thru your lens.... and why? because they don't feel they need to. The theory of e. is founded on a particular understanding of the fossil rocks... but despite what people claim, there is more than one way of viewing this data. (As an aside, it's amusing to me that this popular foundation for materialism depends upon a non-material theory :=)

C. He points out that there's nothing in physics that predicts life. ["Physical theories alone do not predict, define or explain the emergence of life in the universe."] Everything is supposed to 'boil down' to physics; but physics doesn't account for life. Therefore everything cannot be boiled down to physics. i.e. physics cannot explain the universe we live in. (As I've said many times in these pages; there needs to be an explanation of where intelligent information comes from... and materialism can't offer one.)

D. biology doesn't predict consciousness he says...

- consciousness is the basis (foundation) of what our magazine writers are pleased to call science, but yet materialist science denies c. even exists. (ie. not being material it can't exist) Materialist science (scientism) would be a great theory if only human consciousness didn't exist :=) If only information (genetic) didn't exist. How terrible... a perfectly wonderful theory gone down the drain for the sake of such trivial data :=)

E. He says there is no scientific definition of consciousness.

F. There is no objective way of detecting c. he says...

G. We don't know the causes of c. he says. (The e. tells us e. is a fact... but we have no idea what the cause of such an ability to affirm theory is... so what kind of a fact can it be :=) what we're dealing with here is a claim made by a mind... by people who claim there is no mind :=) I don't know about you... but I find this amusing.

H. Science doesn't know how chemicals generate consciousness... these are just ordinary substances as it were. (It's obvious to me that chemicals could only create (facilitate) c. with the help of information. ie. that it's only code that makes this work.

Notes;
1. Toward the first revolution in the mind sciences - B. Alan Wallace/Google talk
Google TechTalks August 8, 2006
- I've recently read 'Embracing Mind' by Wallace, and thought it was a rewarding read.
2. I like a lot of things affirmed by certain Buddhist writers... but the big blind spot (failing) is creation. People like W. just affirm the big bang theory and evolution. I'd point out to W. that this isn't observational.
- Buddhism as 'defined' by intellectuals like W. isn't the b. of the people. (Which seems akin to popular Hinduism) It's like the Christianity of Spong vs the C. of Falwell.
3. at certain moments of doubt I've wondered if a belief in c. or e. effects the mind so radically that it changes the brain... in such a way that we see the evidence differently... ie. that we're looking at the world with a different mind from each other.
4. he refers to a Cristof Koch (a physicalist I guess) speaking of the relation of the brain to consciousness he says 'for now it is best to keep an open mind on this matter...'' Too bad we don't have people saying this about macro evolution.
5. he keeps mocking people for believing the bible is the word of god. (This is an aspect of buddhism I don't like.) I agree with van til that special revelation is the only foundation for sure knowledge that there is; that there could be. He speaks of the necessity of revelation.
6. Wallace tells us we shouldn't think our 'western' ideas trump all ideas; that our thinkers trump all thinkers. There's ancient India to consider... What people like this rarely admit is that India was a basket case before the Europeans 'discovered' it; people living in utter poverty, darkness and depravity... (e.g. the caste system; etc.) If the philosophy was so good why did they set living widows on fire? I guess we shouldn't ask. (I have no flag to wave for the Greeks or for western philosophy, believe me.... and I accept the idea great thinking was done in the East... but let's be realistic.) I've read accounts of people supposedly so blissed out that their families must look after even their bodily needs... even put them in diapers. Let's be honest here.
7. As I understand him; he defines western thinking as one that postulates a radical separation between subject and object. He calls this the god's eye view of things... that objective reality exists outside of and apart from the human being, the human mind. (Didn't Kant put an end to that?)
- the Indians were trying to understand experience... not objective reality.
8. he talks of a telescope of the mind... developed by the ancient Indians who studied the mind. (I kind of like that.)
9. I should not here that I made an extensive (for me at least) study of Buddhism and Zen many years ago... so I'm not ignorant or hostile to the tradition. I meditated for several years... I read more than a hundred books. etc.
10. For Wallace C. is religion and this makes it boring. (i.e. it's based on truths that can't be tested or rejected) B. however is based on experimental testing... and so is exciting. (His view of c. is only true of b.c. not of liberal c.) It's a view that is only true for intellectuals like himself, not for the the b. masses. This assumes that truth doesn't exist I guess... but isn't his quest one for truth? but why bother if it doesn't exist? is truth boring Alan?
11. I"m not sure why but he tells us creationism in the schools makes most of us gag. Gee; I guess most of us engineers at Google :=) Well; I consider Darwinism a creationism of it's own; ie. it's a 'religious' view of origins; a wview assumption... not reality. (I utterly refute the idea of government schools, but apparently wallace doesn't. I see them as instruments of wview tyranny. I fail to see how a critic of materialism can be an advocate of the statist school system... but perhaps I need to meditate on it :=)
12. "what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
- if you want to meditate on something I would recommend this claim... it's potentially revolutionary.
13. I apologize for the sloppy writing in this post... these are just notes made watching a lecture.

I believe in evolution because I have to

If the theory of evolution is true, people must believe that it's true. In other words, it's not intellectual decision, but only a chemical reaction.

Quotes and comments;

A. In the move Expelled we see William Provine tell us that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in free will, ethics, etc. (He's very passionate... but why.) He seems to have bought the myth (from scientism) that everything must reduce to physics.

- He tells us 'I never wish for a moment I had free will...' (I don't believe him for a second.)

B. Peter Atkins tells us 'religion is pure fantasy...'

- Really? How would he know that? Does he believe the chemical reactions in his brain deliver up to him absolute truth about ideas? (A cynic might call this pure fantasy.)

He concludes his sound bite by telling us 'it's evil as well.' Gee; is there some reason he believe the chemical reactions in his brain are giving the truth about this concept called religion? Hmm... I wonder why he believes that. Are some chemicals causing him to believe this?

Notes;
1. Expelled; No intelligence allowed
I encourage you to watch the film... it's informative, clever and humorous.

Reductionism; and the assault on human experience

Reductionism as an approach to human experience is making large inroads into popular psychology and self help books. In this post I'll look at an example from Joe Dispenza.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'More important, if we decide to alter the dynamics of our relationship with a particular person in our life who has been close to us, the change that is represented by heartache and suffering is likely just the chemical feeling that we are missing from ceasing to fire the same synaptic neural networks. [1.]

- Do you see what he's saying? He's claiming that heartache and suffering are just epiphenomenon, and that the 'reality' of our situation exists at the level of neuronal firing. This is reductionism as it plays out in popular psychology. I consider this approach scientism, and I reject it. People were designed to feel emotions and to engage in intimate, loving relationships. This makes emotions the reality, and neuro transmitters (etc.) are the foundation that makes this possible. (Dopamine, in and of itself, has no emotional component; it only produces emotions in organisms designed to use dopamine. The 'magic' is not in the chemical, but in the genetic code that makes use of the chemical. Without the code the chemical is nothing.)

You can see how the reductionist model is tailor made for drug based treatments for mental illness. If suffering is just chemical reactions, then the solution is bound to be some chemical intervention in the system. (Reductionism is far from being merely a ball philosophers kick around; it has life and death implications for everyone's daily life.)

This reductionist approach trivializes human emotion, and human experience. (It's the dehumanization of man.) It belittles and degrades people, treating them as things instead of persons. (As one neuroscientist likes to say; ''people are just walking bags of chemicals.") I don't accept the creationist model because it saves human experience, but this is a positive advantage of it.
- note the use of the word 'just' in his statement. This is a reliable guide to a reductionist interpretation. [emphasis mine]

B. 'Regardless of whether a feeling is positive or negative, it results from the release of certain chemicals. Love (or what we think is love), then, may indeed be all about chemistry. [2]

- We see here the downside to our establishment view of science; of science being equated with materialism. Materialism inevitably leads to reductionism, and all the falsehoods and fallacies associated with it. To equate love with chemicals; to conflate the two, is about as stupid as it gets. Not only does it do away with poetry, but it leads people down the wrong path in their thinking. This is akin to saying a computer is all about electricity. In both cases people are ignoring the most important bit of data, and that's the code that makes both love and functioning computers. Human beings are capable of love because they were designed (by an intelligent being) to be able to love and be loved. It's the coded information in our cells that makes this possible. The chemicals involved in the background of the process aren't determinative of the process; they aren't equivalent to love, but make love possible. If this r. model were correct, you wouldn't need someone to love, all you'd need would be a pill. (You could go on a date with your pill case I guess :=)


Notes;
1. Evolve your brain - Joe Dispenza/323
2. ibid
3. Most of the errors in science (etc.) come from absolutizing partial truths. This is what I see happening in neuroscience. Fascinating discoveries (even momentous ones) have been made, but we mustn't give in to the reductionist temptation and reduce human experience to the material level. To treat people as chemicals is not only false, it's anti-human; inhuman if you will. (As we have death of god theology, so we have death of man psychology.)

Ruling the evidence out of court

Materialists like to claim that there is no evidence for creation. If this is so, it's only because certain kinds of evidence has been ruled out of court.

Quotes and comments;

A. "For much of the twentieth century, the problem of consciousness was simply avoided. Starting before World War 1, the reigning movement in psychology was behaviorism, which ruled out discussing mental events." [1.]

- We might say that in the same way that Behaviorism rules out mind, Darwinism rules out design. i.e. it's a matter of methodology rather than data or evidence. Despite B.F. Skinner and later peers, consciousness still exists. Putting on eye shades doesn't make the world disappear. The fact that physicists tell us reality is composed of particles doesn't do away with human experience.

B. "As we have seen, most theories of mind and consciousness are based in classical physics, which treats consciousness as an anomaly to be explained away." [2.]

- As materialism treats consciousness as an anomaly to be explained away, so Darwinism treats design as something to be explained away.
- As materialism can't account for consciousness, Darwinism can't account for complex, specified information.

C. "After a century or more of looking, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn't exist." [3.]

- As materialists claim consciousness is an illusion, Darwinists claim design is an illusion. (e.g. "All we see is the appearance of design,'' says e. guru Richard Dawkins. i.e. we don't see design, just what looks like design.)
- As most neuroscientists deny that the self exists, so materialists deny that God exists.
- If there is no self man becomes an it, an object. As materialism turns man into an object, so it turns God's creation into a hunk of matter.

D. 116. As neuroscientists deny free will, so materialists deny divine creation.

E. "Of course the placebo effect doesn't make sense if you assume that the mind does not exist or is powerless." [4.]

- As the placebo effect refutes reductionism, so complex information (genetic code) refutes evolutionary materialism.

Notes;
1. Spiritual Brain - Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary/p.109
2. ibid p. 111
3. ibid p.115 quoting Lemonick
4. ibid p.141

Evolution and pornography

The most obscene pornography I've heard of is the dream of some Darwinists (including Richard Dawkins) to create a hybrid of man and chimpanzee. We see here the depth of perversity in some opponents of creation. That they can find such a fantasy titillating (exciting their hatred of God and Christianity) shows us how incapable they are of giving an objective account of the evidence at hand in the origins debate.

Quotes and comments;

A. No doubt drooling at the mouth, Dawkins writes of his fantasy, ''Politics would never be the same again, no would theology, sociology, psychology or most branches of philosophy. The world that would be so shaken, by such an incidental event as a hybridisation, is a speciest world indeed, dominated by a discontinuous mind." [1.]

- In case you weren't aware of it, for many evolutionists, being labeled a speciest is about as evil a thing as they can imagine. (A speciest being someone who imagines humans are unique; that they are not in fact animals.) You might wonder how Dawkins can know all this change would happen, especially since the 'continuous' model is already accepted by the great majority of academics. They already act as if the dream were true, or had already happened. (Why he calls it incidental I don't know.)

The bible expressly forbids beastiality by the way. (It might seem that this law was implied in the repeated refrain from genesis that each animal reproduced after its kind.)
- There always seem to be people who find it exciting to do what the bible forbids. (Is this one of the big attractions for espousing evolution over creation?)

The Mosaic law has some rules forbidding hybridisation that I've always found puzzling. (At one time I wondered if they might have had their source in speculation about kinds.)

B. David P. Barash is another devotee of humanzee pornography; one who dreams of seeing human/animal hybrids in the future. I see in this more evidence of how Darwinism degrades the human mind; how it turns people into idiots. [2.]

- I can't imagine any animals having interest in such a project, but then animals aren't depraved as human beings are. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, there are many essential differences between human beings and animals; one of these being the ability to sin.

C. Barash claims such a hybrid would erase the line between animals and humans. "It's a line that exists only in the minds of those who proclaim that the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature." [2.]

- Why does he say 'only' in the mind? Doesn't evolutionary theory exist only in the mind of humans as well? We see here that a prime motivation for some evolutionists is the desire to disprove God and Christianity. Evolution isn't so much a search for truth in that case, but the search for the disproof of God. Such a hybrid, if such a monstrosity were to be produced, wouldn't disprove man as created by god, it would only prove the bible's claim that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things.

That they'd be willing to produce such a creature (I doubt this would be possible) only goes to show what hatred animates these people. What could possibly be the fate of such a thing? Apparently they don't care.

If this hybrid would prove evolution theory is correct, does the failure (on the part of Stalin, etc.) to produce such a hybrid then disprove evolution? This would seem to be the downside of the Barash/Dawkins dream. (I'm not saying it would.)

Notes;
1. Spiritual brain - Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary p.14
2. ibid/p.15
3. see p.14 for a reference to the Stalin incident.
4. A key question for e.s is why humans and apes are so different. Since the theory states they had a common ancestor something must have happened to make humans so radically different. But what? I've never seen any answers to this question that were at all convincing. Since evolutionists can't answer this question they either (for the most part) ignore it or claim (despite the evidence) that the differences are trivial.
5. In my opinion the idea man is just an animal (which is the reigning model of academic thought at the moment) gives modern thought a pornographic foundation.
6. The SF stories of Cordwainer Smith featured animal/human hybrids; cat people, dog people, and so on. (I've always seen it as an element of horror in his work.) Without a strong creationist perspective I don't see any way to prevent such experimentation. It's my view that the role of man (as a steward under God) is to do his best to preserve the original created kinds; not to in any way add to them, or to create new kinds.

An explanation for the modern rejection of creation

- The philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that man 'constitutes' reality; that what we call reality is only a chimera created by the categories of the mind. This idea quickly became the foundation of all modern thinking. As I see it, this basic idea lies at the heart of the resistance to biblical creation among most intellectuals. The implication is that if man were created (fully formed) by a divine being then it's not man who creates reality but God. How so?

In the biblical 'model' man is not an accidental and independent creature who somehow created himself, but someone who was given his abilities and nature by god. While it's still true that man 'creates' reality, this is true only in a secondary sense - the ultimate cause of human experience is God. Therefore man cannot take credit for creating reality, all he do is experience things in the way God intended and intends.

Kant didn't deny the noumenal realm, but denied man can know it in and of itself. Here is the source of the animosity against special revelation, as it claims that man can indeed know the noumenal realm. We see here that resistance to creation stems from the very core of modern man's intellectual beliefs. Kant puts man at the center of things, while biblical creation puts God at the center.

Notes;
1. Modern intellectual tradition; from Descartes to Derrida; a lecture series by Lawrence Cahoone/Teaching Company [lecture #8 Kant's Copernican revolution]
- This series is the best introduction to modern philosophical thinking I'm aware of. There are two lectures on Kant.
2. By calling 'reality' a chimera, I may have overstated what Kant had in mind. (I find it hard to understand exactly what he had in mind.)

The Darwinian revolution

In this post I want to briefly review a series of lectures called 'The Darwinian Revolution'. The lecturer is prof. Frederick Gregory. I's a balanced and historical treatment of the subject, and the best introduction to Darwinism that I know of.

Comments;

- Gregory written the massive 'Natural science in Western History' so he knows the subject intimately. The course not only deals with the precursors to Darwin and the Origin, but also with the century that came after. It has the benefit of dealing not only with the English scene, but with European thinkers as well.

I appreciate the fact he gives us a scholarly presentation rather than a polemical one. (e.g. you know who)
In my opinion the historical approach is the only way to teach evolutionary theory. The trouble with the way it's taught to most students is a triumphalist approach. e.g. "evolution is a fact... so memorize the details." The historical approach gives you an idea of how debatable most of the main parts of the theory are. It gives you a glimpse of a time when it was still possible to question this new orthodoxy. It reminds people that many of the best scientists of the day brought pertinent criticisms to bear upon the theory.

To merely pronounce evolution as a fact is to tear the theory out of its context and thus distort the subject. Nothing as complicated as evolution can ever be a fact, as we normally think of facts. e.g. 2+2=4. There will always be more to learn about the history of living organisms on this planet, and as long as you are learning about x you can't say you have the facts about x.

I recommend the series for both creationists and evolutionists. I think it has something to offer to each. (This is one characteristic of a scholarly work; that both sides of a debate will find it illuminating and useful.)

Some comments on individual lectures;

#14. Groundwork for recovery
Gregory talks about how the idea of mutations came to the fore around 1916. Thomas Hunt Morgan said mutations can be good, bad or indifferent. i.e. as far as the survival of the organism is concerned.

- I would claim a mutation can never be beneficial, from a biblical creation viewpoint. Let's compare a genetic code of organism x to a Shakespeare sonnet. Can a copying mistake ever be beneficial? No; at least not as far as the author is concerned. If God indeed created all the original kinds, then a mutation (copying mistake) can never be a good thing, as what was created perfect has changed. That's how I see it, but maybe I'm wrong. (That this change might be part of God's providence is another question.)

Notes;
1. Darwinian Revolution - Frederick Gregory [Teaching Company/24 lectures]

It's an information universe

A common complaint made against creationists is the most of creationist writing consists of a critique of evolution. Though there's some truth to this claim, it can be explained in a couple of ways. [1.] The area of what we might call creation science is relatively young, and has few participants; second, evolutionists appear to be largely ignorant of what we might call positive study, investigation and discovery in the field. One example of a positive creation can be seen in the work of Werner Gitt on information theory.

Quotes and comments;
- the quotes below are from an article by Gitt. He makes the claim that information cannot come from matter, and that it therefore disproves materialism and macro-evolution.

97. 'The American mathematician Norbert Wiener made the oftcited statement: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy.” With this he acknowledged a very significant thing: information is not a material entity. [2.]

97. 'Let me clarify this important property of information with an example. Imagine a sandy stretch of beach. With my finger I write a number of sentences in the sand. The content of the information can be understood. Now I erase the information by smoothing out the sand. Then I write other sentence in the sand. In doing so I am using the same matter as before to display this information. Despite this erasing and rewriting, displaying and destroying varying amounts of information, the mass of the sand did not alter at any time. The information itself is thus massless.

98. 'Information itself is never the actual object or act, neither is it a relationship (event or idea), but encoded symbols merely represent that which is discussed. Symbols of extremely different nature play a
substitutionary role with regard to the reality or a system of thought. Information is always an abstract representation of something quite different.

98. 'Using the last four of the five levels, we developed an unambiguous definition of information: namely an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as “universal information” (UI).

99. 'In the following we will describe the four most important laws of nature about information.
#1. A material entity cannot generate a nonmaterial entity
#2. Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity
#3. Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes
#4. Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver

99. 'The materialistic worldview has widely infiltrated the natural sciences such that it has become the ruling paradigm. However, this is an unjustified dogma. The reality in which we live is divisible into two fundamentally distinguishable realms: namely, the material and the non-material.

99. 'Matter involves mass, which is weighable in a gravitational field. In contrast, all non-material entities (e.g. information, consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea; it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical or chemical processes. Information is also not correlated with matter in the same way as energy, momentum or electricity is. However, information is stored, transmitted and expressed through matter and energy.

99. 'Sufficient Condition (SC): An observed entity can be judged to be “non-material” if it has no physical or
chemical correlation with matter. This is always the case if the following four conditions are met:
• SC1: The entity has no physical or chemical interaction with matter.
• SC2: The entity is not a property of matter.
• SC3: The entity does originate in pure matter.
• SC4: The entity is not correlated with matter.

100. 'The grand theory of evolution would gain some empirical support if it could be demonstrated, in a real experiment, that information could arise from matter left to itself without the addition of intelligence. Despite the most intensive worldwide efforts this has never been observed.

101. 'The programs in living systems obviously exhibit an extremely high degree of sophistication. No scientist can explain the program that produces an insect that looks like a withered leaf. No biologist understands the secret of an orchid blossom that is formed and coloured like a female wasp … and smells like one, too. We are able to think, feel, desire, believe and hope. We can handle a complex thing such as language, but we are aeons away from understanding the information control process that develop the brain in the embryo. Biological information displays a sophistication that is unparalleled in human information.

- It's my guess that the more we discover about the complexity of biological information, the more the concept of intelligent design will begin to make sense to people. With each new discovery the assumption of materialism becomes harder to hold.

102. 'Even though information requires a material substrate for storage/transmission, information is not a property of matter. In the same way, the information in living things resides on the DNA molecule. But it is no more an inherent property of the physics and chemistry of DNA than the blackboard’s message was an intrinsic property of chalk.

102. 'The grand theory of atheistic evolution must attribute the origin of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy, without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. A central claim of atheistic evolution must therefore be that the macro-evolutionary processes that generate biological information are fundamentally different from all other known information-generating processes.
However, the natural laws described here apply equally in animate and inanimate systems and demonstrate this claim to be both false and absurd.

Notes;
1. It's in the nature of new fields of study that they often begin largely as critiques of existing theories. (e.g. Marx and Engels and their critique of capitalism)
2. Scientific laws of information and their implications—part 1 - Werner Gitt [JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(2) 2009]
- part 2. of the article is also available free online.
- Werner Gitt has also written a book on Information theory that I recommend.

The greater and the lesser light

Much of what poses as science in our day is merely atheism in disguise. An example of this is the latest book by Stephen Hawking, the Great Design.

Quotes and comments;

A. "We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburb of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence." [1.]

- Stephen Hawking has no way of knowing the earth is a 'minor' planet. As far as we know, the earth is utterly unique... so why does he refer to it in such a derogatory way? The word minor means lesser. This being the case it is utterly unscientific to refer to the earth as minor, since it is by far (an understatement) the most amazing planet we know of. This isn't science, but merely anti-creationism dressed up as science. One might call Mercury a minor planet, but not earth.

If earth were truly a minor planet professor Hawking wouldn't exist. It would appear he has some axe to grind, some desire to diminish the significance of the earth. We need to ask what effect does this bias against creation have on the scientific enterprise? How does it effect how scientists formulate and defend theories?

Why say average star? The fact X is average doesn't mean it doesn't have a greatness or grandeur. (e.g. an average human being)

What has all this got to do with God? It would appear that Hawking thinks of God as a fellow professor at Oxbridge. Isn't he aware that God is greater than man, that god has greater capacities (eg. to love) than man?
One wonders what hawking knows about God. e.g. how is it he knows God doesn't notice man. (The bible tells us very differently.)

Summary;
What people like Hawking do is to assume they know the universe, and to measure the earth in terms of that assumed knowledge. Their idea (propagated so successfully by Carl Sagan) is that the universe is full of planets like earth, that are complete with sentient beings. This claim however isn't empirical, and thus according to our judges, doesn't qualify as scientific. The only empirical (verifiable) knowledge we have is that the earth is unique; and that human beings are unique.

M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Hawking atheopathy; Famous physicist goes beyond the evidence - by Jonathan Sarfati

3. The exoplanets that have been discovered so far to date are nothing like earth. When Hawking calls earth a minor planet he's contradicting the evidence.
4. It's ironic of course that Hawking makes so much mileage (and so much money) talking about a God he claims doesn't exist.
- As a physicist he might be in the major leagues, but in terms of philosophy he's most definitely minor league.

The mathematical equivalent of stupidity

In a lecture on something called neuroeconomics, Robert Sopalsky offers a concise introduction to game theory. At one point he discusses a hypothetical scenario where a person is offered a choice of saving people by pulling a lever, or by pushing a person in front of a train. (As I remember it, in the latter scenario more people are saved.) He tells us these scenarios are mathematically equivalent. [1.]

Quotes and comments;

- To say ethical strategy A. (moral) is 'mathematically equivalent' to strategy B. (immoral) is nonsensical. You can't talk about ethics and morality in terms of mathematics. That's not what ethics is. Mathematics isn't ethical, and ethics aren't mathematical. How anyone can make such a huge mistake I don't know.

Materialism (being monistic) leads to endless errors; as the human and the non-human must be explained by the same principles. The appeal of game theory is that it gives promise of being able to explain animal behavior in terms of mathematics; and thus gives hope to the dream of being able to explain all things (including human experience) in terms of physics.

Notes;
1. Robert Sopalsky; Biology and human behavior; lecture 12 [Cooperation, competition and neuroeconomics]
- While creationists have done a fair job of reviewing books on evolution, they've done a poor job of keeping up with lecture series such as this. (The Teaching Company alone has many courses on evolution.) I can't remember ever having seen a review of one of them. As courses like these gain in popularity I think this is a lack that needs rectifying.
2. Neuroeconomics appearantly refers to observing the brain while people play these games such as Prisoner's Dilemna.
- I fail to see how these games can possibly be an accurate reflection of the animal world. I think we see here the triumph of the rational over the real.

Standing up for evolution

The politicization of children's books has now hit the Origins debate.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'An award-winning children’s book was written by a man who said, “We have got to stand up for evolution. Lots of kids don’t know about it....” Chris Wormell, who wrote and illustrated One Smart Fish, received the Booktrust Early Years Award... The book is a story about a fish wanting to evolve into a land animal. [1.]

- ''We've got to stand up for evolution...'' Really? Is he forgetting he's just matter in motion, a bag of chemicals, a robot acting out the wishes of selfish genes?

Stand up for a mindless process of chance and degeneration? Human beings defending and celebrating the process of entropy? Sounds great; let the parade begin.

I once wrote a very similar story... the main difference being that mine was satire.

Sadly, the book radically distorts evolutionary theory... as it depends upon teleology and will. I'm sure this wasn't done intentionally, as it seems unlikely a book that dishonest would receive an award.

I guess his next book will be about a land animal that wishes to become a fish. (I can easily imagine that the final book in the trilogy will be about a human being that wishes to be an animal.)

Notes;
1. Children Propagandized Into Evolution with Fishy Tale Creation/Evolution Headlines 09/07/2010
2. Stand up for;
'To speak or act in support or defense of (a person, a cause, a belief, or the like).' - Wiktionary
- Perhaps Mr. Wormell isn't aware that the process of evolution isn't a person, a cause, or a belief. (On second thought, I could be wrong.)
3. The politicization of children's books is something that saddens me, but I guess that's to be expected when so many people think children belong to the state. (Is it my imagination or do most books nowdays seem to be written by political hacks?)
4. Richard Dawkins wants to make the teaching of evolution compulsory for grade schools in Britain. In other words he wants to use the power of the state to force his worldview on the general populace, to use political power to destroy individual conscience. [see ref. #1]

The mind, the brain, and creation

It's all the rage in neurobiology to claim that the brain (matter) is all there is, and that the mind doesn't exist. I'd like to make a dissenting comment or two.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'You can’t deny that your mind exists. After all, the very act of denying requires the ability to form thoughts, which seems to be a mental ability—so denying that you have a mind would amount to proving that you do! What’s unclear, however, is just what it means to have a mind.We know that we have brains,
which are purely physical objects." [1.]

- Let's take a look at this statement to see if it makes any sense. Let's change one word... 'we know that a computer is a purely physical object.' Now; does that claim make any sense? I don't think so; and I don't think the claim about the brain makes any sense. What is a purely physical object? We could define it as an object that has recieved no human input, had no intelligent intervention in its structure or shape let's say. I don't think the brain is an object that hasn't recieved any intelligent intervention. I think the brain is a creation of an intelligence. (In a way similar to software; it's a product of coding.) The brain is an 'object' created by intelligence, for a purpose, and to perform certain functions. To fail to understand this, is to forever be unable to understand the mind.

Brain and mind are very different things in the sense matter and information are very different things. To understand mind we need to understand the concept of information. We might call mind the information embedded in the matter of the brain. (In this case; specified and complex information.) Information is both separate from and dependent upon matter. (How god, or the mind of god, can exist without matter I don't know. I see the question of god's existence as beyond human ability to comprehend.)

Summary; It's my opinion that human beings are only conscious because they were designed to be so; that this could not have happened via some chemical accident.

Notes;
1. 60 Second Philosopher - Andrew Pessin/ch. 4.
- I was surprised to see that this book [of daily meditations] wasn't more popular. I suspect this was because the author was too demanding of his readers. I hope to rectify his mistake with my new book 'Philosophy in 60 seconds a week :=)
2. to pretend the mind doesn't exist is like pretending software doesn't exist. (We were designed to think, act and respond in certain ways. The bible claims that this 'programming' has gone wrong in some way; that man no longer the same as in the original creation.)
- I might add here that no one who has read the bible carefully, and as intended, can doubt that the creation (including man) has changed from its state in the original creation. Creationists may have taught an unchanging creation, but this wasn't biblical. (Since the books of the bible weren't written to satisfy man's fallen curiosity, the details aren't given to us.)
3. I don't see anything wrong with using terms like spirit (soul, etc.) to represent the information we see in genetic code. (There is after all nothing we can see or touch in information itself. We can think of information as immaterial.) I see it (at least) as an intuition that there's more to living organisms than mere matter. (I admit to liking the term informed matter... which I seem to recall someone using to describe Aristotle's take on Plato's forms.) Terms like spirit gave people a way to talk about a very real phenomenon while the genetic code was unknown. It (spirit) respected human experience, while the philosopher friendly (and Rationalist) idea of materialism discounted human experience.
4. The idea the brain is all there is... and that there is no mind, is as foolish a notion as claiming a computer is only hardware. The observation that brain is just matter completely misses the point.
5. To claim that thoughts can be boiled down to the firing of neurotransmitters is like saying a book can be boiled down to paper and ink. Neuro-biologists fail to understand the concept of information.
6. People who claim that religious experience can be boiled down to a brain malfunction (eg. Susan Greenfield) have ceased being empiricists. If all is merely matter in motion nothing can be a malfunction. Just as David Hume said that no one sees causation, no one sees malfunction. All one sees is matter in motion. The idea of malfunction depends on a standard; and that's not reductionism.
- These people never bother to define religion or spiritual either, which is very convenient for them.

Creation and the gift of awareness

Is self awareness a gift or an accident?

Quotes and comments;

A. "Self-awareness is a supreme gift, a treasure as precious as life." - Irvin Yalom [1.]

- Self awareness is a gift Yalom tells us . This somnolent statement ignores the fact that a gift must come from a person. Since Yalom claims to be a materialist, awareness (whatever else he can say about it) can't be a gift - as there is no Person from whom it is offered. Yalom is asleep at the keyboard, nodding off over his notebook when he writes this way. If he wants to be consistent he can't speak of awareness as a gift - he can only speak of it as an accident.

He's using language from another worldview; speaking as if this was a personal universe, not the impersonal one he speaks about elsewhere in his books and talks.

In the materialist model of the universe people find presents under the tree, but claim no one put them there. The materialist has no one to thank for this 'gift' of awareness. (If we reject creation we remove the foundation for worship.)

B. In speaking of the awareness of death (what he calls death anxiety) Yalom quotes from the epic of Gilgamesh;
"Thou hast become dark and cannot hear me. When I die, shall I not be like Enkidu? Sorrow enters my heart. I am afraid of death." [2.]

- Anyone who claims they're not afraid of death is likely dead already.

In orthodox Christian theology the fear of death, at its deepest level is a fear of judgment. An existentialist like Yalom claims to be willing to 'stare at the sun' but when he denies a life after death he reveals to us that's he not willing to look things at the deepest level after all. (Some of us follow Epicurus, and some of us aspire to follow Calvin. Some of us think the goal or ideal of life is personal tranquility, and some think it's godliness.)

Notes;
1. Staring at the sun; overcoming the terror of death - Irvin Yalom/p.1
A. "Self-awareness is a supreme gift, a treasure as precious as life. This is what makes us human."
- Self-awareness is a vital part of being human, but it's not what makes us human. What makes us human is that we were created in the image of God.
B. ibid
2. Gift;
- c.1100, from O.N. gift, from P.Gmc. *giftiz (cf. O.Fris. jefte, M.Du. ghifte "gift," Ger. Mitgift "dowry"), from PIE base *ghabh- "to give or receive" (see habit). O.E. cognate gift meant "bride-price, marriage gift (by the groom), dowry" (O.E. for "giving, gift" was related giefu). Sense of "natural talent" is c.1300.
- We might say that materialists have a real gift for appropriating theistic language :=)
3. Gift;Websters/1913
1. Anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering.
2. The act, right, or power of giving or bestowing.

The unaided light of reason

Anyone who's familiar with the Origins debate has read and heard a lot of talk about religion vs reason. They've also come across a lot of claims about the need to disavow superstition and to rely strictly upon reason. Let's see if this makes any sense.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Within the sphere of nature a relative autonomy was ascribed by [St.]Thomas to the human reason, which he supposed to be capable by its own unaided light of discovering the natural truths about the universe and of man’s place within it. [1]

- There's no such thing as the 'unaided' light of human reason. This notion is a Humanist pretense. If man was created by God (in God's image) it's impossible for man to do anything unaided. The pretense that man does things without aid is a pretense based on pride. Not only is man the creation of God; the whole universe is. Man cannot learn anything without the aid of his creator. At times one gets the feeling Humanists would like to pretend that man created his own mind :=) There is no such thing as the unaided light of reason. (This would be like saying; 'I created this webpage with the unaided help of Frontpage.')

The essence of Humanism is to deny God the credit for anything. This project includes giving man the credit for thinking, reason, language, logic, mathematics, science, music, art, etc. Humanists hate the idea of creation because it denies this pretense that man is the fount of all intellectual skills and accomplishments.

The long project we call science has involved many discoveries by humankind about the universe; but none of this was done unaided. Neither was any of this done without the aid of god's spoken word. It's taken as fact that the greeks knew nothing from god's revealed word, and so deserve all the credit for what they came up with. I agree with the scholars who reject such a Humanist view of things. The revealed word of god has been alive in the world since god (in whatever vehicle) spoke to Adam. The accumulated word of god, whether written down or not, was a component of every ancient culture. (It's true this word became debased in various degrees and at various times.) The influence of this revealed word has never been absent from human culture.
- I personally see much of ancient Greek thought as a response to this revealed word. The Greeks were descendents of one of Noah's sons after all. Stories like the creation and the Flood were far too powerful to have ever disappeared.

When we say 'reason' is capable of x, it's vital we know what is meant by reason. The humanist claims that man's ability to reason (often sadly reified as Reason) is a product of chemical evolution; and the biblical creationist claims it's a gift of God (designed by Intelligence for a specific purpose and role). If man's ability to reason were merely the product of matter and chance we wouldn't be here to talk about it. There is no evidence that matter can produce intelligence. This is a Humanist myth. The fact men reason (and can disagree about Origins) is evidence that the materialist pretense is fallacious.

Notes;
1. The Reformation and the Development of Modern Science - E. L. Hebden Taylor/p.6
2. 'As Professor David Knowles writes in his excellent work The Evolution of Medieval Thought:
‘As a follower of Albert who outran his master Aquinas accepted human reason as an adequate and self-sufficient instrument for attaining truth within the realm of man’s natural experience, and in so doing gave, not only to abstract thought but to all scientific knowledge, rights of citizenship in a Christian world. He accepted in its main outlines the system of Aristotle as a basis for his own interpretation of the visible
universe’ (p. 257). ''
3. The allusion to Frontpage might be a bit out of date; but when I started creating websites this was a popular way for non-coders to accomplish the task.

The human and non-human sciences

It's my view that the project we call science is based on a fallacious foundation. The view that all things must be explained in a reductionistic and materialist manner is a grave mistake, and one that needs to be remedied if the project is going to get back on the right track.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'But because the mechanical view has a perfect right of existence in a part of the territory which history has gradually assigned to natural science, and has indeed led in it to various valuable results, many have drawn the conclusion that natural science is the only true science, and that the mechanical solution is the only
true solution of all phenomena. [1.]

- It's my view that we need to divide the sciences up into the physical sciences, the animal sciences, and the human sciences. Each requires its own methodology and guiding principles. It is therefore a category mistake to treat human beings as if they were (merely) physical objects. I define scientism as treating human beings as if they were physical objects, or mere animals. In scientism we see the imperialistic spirit of man's intellect at work. Since man was created in God's image, he was created with a capacity and a 'will' to see things in terms of a 'total' picture. (i.e. in terms of God's providence) When men reject God they replace his Providence with a 'totalizing' worldview of their own; thus scientism. [2.]

B. 'Robert Mayer, for instance, the discoverer of the law of the conservation of energy, completely excluded from this law the entire domain of psychical life, and considered it a great error to identify things physical and psychical. [3.]

- To insist all phenomena in the universe be studied and explained in terms of a single methodology is a philosophical decision. There is nothing in the data which shows this to be correct or that necessitates such a choice.

Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.87
2. Another way of seeing this drive is as one for unity. Because man was created in the image of God he seeks unity in his worldview. (We can see this drive as evidence such unity exists.)
3. ibid p.101

Creation and the fear of reality

Conventional wisdom tells us that to be considered scientific, a theory cannot violate any of the known facts of science. It's my contention that consensus accounts of fossils commonly commit just this error. I look at one example of this below.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards.' [1.]

- This rather typical account of fossilization goes against what we know; this means that it's not a scientific theory. (I've read many times that a 'theory' that goes against what we know cannot be considered a scientific theory... even if one day it turns out to be true. i.e. all theories to be considered scientific must extrapolate from known observations.) If you deny a known observation in your theory it cannot be considered scientific.

In this case the evolutionary account of dinosaur fossils seeks to evade the truth (of the Flood) by inventing a story that goes contrary to known observations. e.g. we don't see massive fossilized 'bonebeds' formed by tropical storms do we? Therefore, we have good reason to reject this as a scientific theory.

B. 'Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either! [1.]

C. 'Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.' [1.]

- What we see here are evolutionists who refuse to make the obvious conclusion. They avoid talking of massive floods because they want (at all costs) to avoid mention of Noah's flood; i.e. of a worldwide catastrophe. Darwinism was born in the gentle world of Lyellian gradualism and Uniformitarianism. It was a self-conscious repudiation of the catastrophic model of Genesis. Now that the data demand a return to the catastrophic model, Darwinists are loathe to take the plunge. They fear giving comfort to the hated fundamentalist and biblical creationist. Fearing the truth, they take refuge in stories they know very well can't be true. Reality is something (in this case) they can't face. We might say that true science is something they can't face.

We see something similar in the refusal of evolutionists to deal with the implications of genetic code. They know very well that only intelligent agents are capable of writing code, but they can't face the implications, so they invent stories to account for the code that they know aren't true.) As the Eliot said, ''man cannot bear too much reality." The atheist likes to charge the theist with this accusation, but he needs to take a look in the mirror as well. (I think all men cringe from various aspects of reality.)

Summary;
Everyone knows that the so called fossil layers don't get laid down gradually, but yet Darwinists claim that this is who they were formed. The theory contradicts everything we actually observe. We don't see animal fossils being formed gradually. In my opinion the consensus view of the fossil layers should not be considered scientific. We don't see this happening today, but we're supposed to believe it happened in the past. When we do see rock layers laid down we see it being done catastrophically.

M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe - by Brian Thomas
2. 'It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event.' [above]

Science and reality

At the foundation of the scientific enterprise is a belief in objective reality, but is there such a thing, and can we know what it is.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The same is true with reference to the problem of the ultimate nature of that reality which must be accepted unless we are willing to sink into solipsism. Whether we take the theistic standpoint here, or accept some one of the different forms of monism, we do not attain to our conception of the nature of reality by the way of experience, but must permit ourselves to be led by metaphysical reasoning on the basis of observation. - Herman Bavinck [1.]

- There can never be a scientific definition of reality. Science is utterly dependent upon some idea of reality, and since reality cannot be defined by science (by naturalism) science is dependent upon a certain metaphysical notion of what reality is. (Science and metaphysics are as intimately connected as body and soul.) A belief in creation, or a belief in materialism are both acts of faith. No matter what view of reality we adopt, we have not made a discovery, but have made a faith based commitment.

When philosophers deal with reality they can do little more than ask questions. (i.e. if they reject scripture) e.g. what is reality? are there different levels? is reality different for different creatures? who gets to define reality? does reality exist? is reality objective or subjective? is reality physical or mental? is it changing or unchanging? can it be known? how can it be known? how can we be sure of our epistemology? and so forth.

In centuries past this question used to be answered simply (if superficially) by claiming reality was what human senses experience. With the invention of new instruments of inquiry and examination (eg. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) this answer is increasingly inadequate. We now know of a 'greater universe' that exists 'outside' of normal human perception. This brings up questions such as 'does reality exist on the microscopic level? the sub-atomic level? on the sub-atomic?' Does reality exist on the level of rational thought or on the level of chemical reaction? i.e. are thoughts merely chemical reactions?

Having rejected Christianity the humanist has no way of determining what reality is. He doesn't know what it is, or on what level to even seek it. His empirical science can't tell him what it is. What he's done is to abandon the question and to accept a kind of naive realism; but this is a view that has no basis in his materialist worldview.

Summary;
Biblical Christianity gives us a view of reality. This view is based on an original creation of all things by God, and by his providential governance of the universe thereafter. We can draw a banal analogy. Let's picture a train set and a track (the kind many of us had as kids) or a racing car set up. Does reality exist at the level of the cars going around the track, or does reality exist at the level of the person with the controls? The materialist claims reality consists of the track and the motion of the cars, while the creationist claims reality exists at the level of the person at the controls.

Notes;
1. The Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.92

The philosophical basis of Science

Despite popular notions to the contrary, you can't do science without doing philosophy. The two are inextricably intertwined and connected.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'This is already evident from the fact that the science of nature, although it has in many respects the advantage over the mental sciences, still utilizes, and is compelled to utilize, all sorts of ideas which are not derived from experience, but are present from the very start. Ideas like " thing " and " property," " matter " and " force," " aether " and " movement," " space " and " time," " cause " and " design," are indispensable to natural science ; but they are derived from metaphysics.'' - Herman Bavinck [1.]

- Let's examine just one of these concepts; causation. People normally speak in terms similar to; 'X caused Y' and we normally accept such statements as meaningful or even conclusive. The question is why we should. We could easily ask, 'but what caused X?' or 'did x cause Y by itself or were other factors involved?' We just take it for granted that 'X caused Y' is a valid explanation, and don't see that this is a decision based upon philosophical ideas and theories. We accept as valid what is an arbitrary decision. We could demand the causal chain be extended several or many places. We could demand that the cause by presented in terms not of a single unit but in terms of systems. The point is that causation is inherently philosophical, and this makes science inherently philosophical.

We often hear in our day the claim that religion must be kept out of science. This sounds like a valid objection to some people, but they fail to realize that the claim really means we should keep metaphysics out of science, and I think I've shown that this can't be done. All scientific thinking is grounded in some kind of metaphysics, whether people realize it or not. The biblical creation that many Humanists object to is merely one kind of metaphysical view.

B. 'Haeckel once said that the eye and the ear are so marvellously constructed that they might seduce us into believing in a creation according to a definitely thought-out plan of construction. But he steels himself against the " seduction." And thus he betrays the fact that the so-called conflict between science and faith lies not in the realm of the physical, but in that of the metaphysical ; concentres not in nature, but in God. What nature is to us is determined by what we think of Godand who he is for us. [2.]

- In my opinion, when a Richard Dawkins speaks about the appearance of design he's admitting that he knows God. His rejection of god has nothing to do with the data, but solely with his aversion to God, and the 'horrors' he imagines have resulted from such a belief. When Charles Darwin spoke of the eye and the flower as making him sick to his stomach, he was admitting he knew god existed. (I take it he was sick all the time because so much of the world reminded him of god's existence.)

If men are 'seduced' into a belief in creation who is doing the seducing? If the answer is man himself, then we have the curious case of a bit of matter seducing other bits of matter to belief in divine creation. (If anyone is being seduced, I don't think it's those who believe in creation.)

The decision to accept or reject the design argument doesn't lie in the data, but in a decision based on metaphysics. The claim that the design argument is rejected on the basis of science is simply false. This claim depends upon a particular (philosophical) conception and definition of science. i.e. upon a particular methodology. This methodology is founded upon a particular metaphysical view. i.e. materialism. Materialism is not a scientific view, and in no way can it be proved.

Notes;
1. Bavinck - Philosophy of Revelation/88
2. ibid/103

The importance of the doctrine of creation

I believe the doctrine of creation has a vital importance to every area of thought and life. Today I'm going to post a long quote by the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck that shows how broad this influence is.

Quotation;

A. 'The doctrine of creation maintains the divinity, the goodness and sacredness of all created things. In this world man now receives his own independent place. He is of kin to all the world, formed out of matter, earthy of the earth ; nothing natural is strange to him. But in one respect he is different from all creatures ; he
is the son, the image, the similitude of God, his offspring. Thereby he is elevated above animal and angel, and destined and fitted for dominion over all the world.

'In this relation of man to God and to the world is the foundation laid and the origin given of all science and art. For how can it be explained that man through his senses can observe the world, and through his intelligence can know and understand it ? Whence this wonderful correspondence of knowing and being? What is the basis of the belief that the conception and the thought in the human brain are no imagination and no hallucination, but correspond with the reality ? What is the ground for the harmony between subject and object, the ego and the non-ego ?

'What is the root from which springs the unity of the laws of existence, the ideas of our thinking, the norms of
our actions ? In what do physis, gnosis, and ethos find their common systema? What is the foundation of the
symbolism of nature, not in the sense of an unfounded nature-theosophy, but in the sense in which Christ saw in the world a parable of the kingdom of heaven ; in the sense in which Goethe said that " all transitory things
are but a parable " ; in the sense in which Drummond in " the natural law " detected an analogy of the law of the spirit?

'On what, in a word, are founded comparison, metaphor, poetry, art, and all science and all culture ? On what else do they rest but on the confession that one word, one spirit, one divine intelligence lies at the foundation of all things and maintains their unity and mutual relations ?

Notes;
1. The philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p. 107
- I found the book available free online. As I remember it, I found it at Archive.org
- Although the lectures that compose the book were given in 1908, I find them as interesting as anything written in our day. Reading them gives you a good feel for how the debate was being handled a century ago. (Bavinck was a contemporary of Ernst Haeckel for example.)

Revelation as the basis for knowledge

Reformed theology claims that revelation (both special and general) is the basis for knowledge; not only the knowledge of God, but of human freedom, and much else.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'This testimony of self-consciousness, combining dependence and freedom in one, is further the basis of religion, and likewise of morality.' Herman Bavinck [1.]

- I take him to mean that while 'science' claims man is not free; both special revelation and general revelation tell us that he is. i.e. the bible says man is free, and we experience a consciousness of freedom. If then we are to maintain that man is free, we will have to rely on revelation as our only foundation for this belief.

B. 'In view of the universality and the spontaneity of religion many have assumed an innate idea of God. But this representation is scarcely well conceived, and the name is somewhat unfortunately chosen. Of course, in the strict sense of the term innate ideas do not exist. They savor rather of rationalism and of a mysticism which separates man from the world, than of a Christian theism which finds God's eternal power and divinity revealed in the works of his hands.
It is the mind of man, with all of its peculiar nature and organization, its intellect and reason, heart and conscience, desire and will, and with the ineradicable consciousness of its dependence and freedom, that is innate, brought into the world in principle and germ at birth, not acquired later phylogenetically or ontogenetically. [1.]

- In more simple terms; man both knows that God exists, and knows himself to be a free and responsible agent because of his inherited nature, of his inherent intellectual capacities. Man is who he is because Adam was created in the image of God, and because we are all his descendents made in his image.

C. 'Thus, when man grows up and develops in accordance with the nature implanted in him, not in detachment from the world and the social organism, but in the environment in which a place was assigned to him at birth, he attains as freely and as inevitably to the knowledge and service of a personal God as he believes in his own existence and that of the world.
He does not invent the idea of God nor produce it ; it is given to him and he receives it. Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection ; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. [2.]

- Materialism isn't a necessary deduction from the data (as atheists claim) but is instead a way to escape revelation. (As the apostle Paul says in Romans; men know God, but don't like to retain this knowledge nor give thanks, but suppress the truth...) We read continually in the scientific press that scientists claim man isn't free, but is as bound as any other bit of matter; but yet scientists themselves admit to the experience of human freedom (e.g. S. Pinker). In terms of Bavinck; they know by revelation they are free, but they deny this in their science. They honor the conclusions of their scientific methodology above the revelation of both experience and scripture.

It's harder to get the materialist to admit he knows God, that he has had experience of god, but we might ask him where freedom can come from other than the Transcendent. When he admits he can find no answer for the origin of living organisms on the earth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he can't find a source for absolute truth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he doesn't know what reality is, or whether it exists, isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent?

D. 'By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself. [2]

Notes;
1. Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/78.
- Although these lectures were given in 1908 they still remain relevant.
2. p. 79

Belief in an age of evolution

I want to make a few comments about a popular new book on apologetics, as it concerns the general area of creation and evolution.

Quotes and comments;
The quotes are from a review of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.

A. 'He asserts that Genesis 1 is a poem (p. 93), that the interpretation is up for debate, and that many Christians with a high view of Scripture have no problem accepting evolution without embracing materialism.' [1.]

- Theistic evolution can itself be seen as a poem; a hymn of praise to Darwin and the secular spirit of the age. The idea Gen. 1. is mere poetry is certainly a radical rewriting of the original text. (One problem here is that in our day 'poetry' is seen as fanciful and untrue, mere imagery. In other words, the problem is that too many Christians have adopted a humanistic view of poetry. In the bible, and in orthodox theology, some of the most important verses in the bible come in the outward form of poetry. e.g. some of the Psalms.) The ancients certainly didn't take the view that if a claim was made in the form of a poem it was necessarily untrue. The form of poetry actually fits the creation far better than does prose. Imagine how poor Gen 1. would sound put in the form of prose.

B. 'Keller asserts that belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to materialistic philosophy (p. 88), but does not offer any actual evidence to back up his statement...'

- I see this kind of thing all the time in reading people who affirm theistic evolution. The strategy they employ is to equivocate in the use of the word evolution. They claim to believe in evolution, but the 'evolution' they defend isn't the theory as it's presented by secular authorities at all. There is absolutely no room for god in the textbook evolution taught in our schools. The 'theory' of evolution is a simple (necessary) deduction from Materialism. If you're a m. you have to be an evolutionist; there's no other answer. Yes; you can believe that the earth was a space colony, planted by intelligent beings in the distant past, but your ultimate explanation for the origin of life has to be 'mechanical' evolution. Keller's claim is empty. If you look around you see that adopting e. leads to secularism and materialism. The evidence seems conclusive to me.

When people like Keller say they believe in evolution they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to appease both the biblical creationist and the atheistic materialist.

Since evolution is presented as a blind and random process, theistic evolutionists are claiming god used a random process. This seems hard to believe or accept. The implication is that man is a random, chance product. This makes all human experience an accidental process and product. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) how this leads directly to heresies like process theology. (e.g. what connection can there be between the character of god and man the accidental product? what connection can there be between the unchanging law of god and an ever evolving primate?)

C. 'Interestingly, at the end of his chapter, Keller affirms that ‘God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it’ (p. 96). However, according to Keller’s long-age evolutionary interpretation, disease, hunger and death were around from the beginning.

- The theistic evolutionist always wants to have things both ways. No matter what the issue, he wants to adopt both the secular materialist view And the biblical view. He can't decide which of two roads to take, so he stands in the intersection and waits for things to blow over. (Wait; is that a bus coming?)

D. 'Obviously, Keller’s view of sin is warped by his theistic evolutionary beliefs; in fact, he identifies ‘original sin’ not as due to Adam’s disobedience in Eden (as the Apostle Paul does in Romans 511), but as ‘humanity’s inherent pride and self-centeredness’ (p. 167).

- A major problem with this view is that it almost necessarily presents us with a time when mankind was not fallen. i.e. if we trace man's history backward we'd come to a time man hadn't yet developed this pride and self-centeredness. We'd come to a time 'man' was an innocent creature. (Keller's view of original sin is far from orthodox. The biblical view of sin isn't self-centeredness, but rebellion against god. The sin isn't pride but a desire to be god.)

E. 'He affirms that ‘when human beings turned from God the entire warp and woof of the world unraveled. Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, aging, and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime, and violence’ (p. 170).

- And when was this? If Genesis is just myth we'd like to know when this 'event' took place... but the theisitic e.s. don't tell us. (It might seem then that their story is the mythical one.)

Theistic evolutionists are the product of 'public' (statist) education. If you send children to statists schools they Will come out as e.s. The reason for this isn't the great case teachers (and later professors) make for evolutionary theory, but simply the fact e. is everywhere accepted and spoken of as a fact beyond controversy. Take any course whatsoever, and the teacher will bring evolution into it; talking about it as if it were a certain and as settled a fact as the chemical makeup of water. It's this factor that turns students into (largely unthinking) evolutionists.

Notes;
1. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller - reviewed by Lita Cosner
- Of course there's no such thing as belief in general. People don't have 'belief' but believe in various propositions or claims. (e.g. people have a belief in christianity, but they also have a belief in evolution, creation, or theistic evolution. (Theistic evolution seems like an oxymoron to me.)
2. There are many fine Christians who believe in theistic evolution and a long age of the earth. My comments shouldn't be construed to claim otherwise. I just don't feel the position is intellectually or spiritually consistent.
- one of my favorite creationist writers, Arthur Custance, believed in a long age for the earth.
3. It takes a lot of courage to defend the biblical model of creation, and I find it hard to blame people who aren't up to the challenge. I think they're wrong, but I know how difficult it can be.
4. If evolution is as scientific as people like Keller claim, one wonders why we don't hear of a belief in theistic gravity, or theistic chemistry.
5. I'm not knocking Keller personally, I'm just using this book as an example of very common thinking within the church.
6. Perhaps God used evolution to create the world because he didn't want our educated Christians (liberals) to be embarassed when they interact with their atheistic peers.

Creation, materialism and the placebo effect

There are many reasons to doubt the Materialist explanation of the universe. The placebo effect is just one of these.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Patients given antidepressants in the clinical trials we analysed showed substantial, clinically meaningful improvement. But so did those given placebos, and the difference between the drug response and the placebo response was not great. The question is not whether antidepressants work, but why they work. Is it because the chemical in the pill specifically targets depression, or is it because of the placebo effect?

- I maintain the placebo effect disproves materialism. I haven't seen a materialist explanation that makes sense, or deals with the data.

B. 'They can make people feel sick, and they can make them feel better. Placebo effects are part of a broader phenomenon – the power of suggestion to change how people feel, how they behave, and even their physiology.' p.102

- The materialist has to explain to us how a 'suggestion' (an immaterial or spiritual entity) can affect the brain and the mind.

C. 'In his seminal article on the ‘pharmacology of placebos’, Wolf described a number of experimental demonstrations of the ability of a placebo to reverse the effects of an active medication.

- I'm just a layman, but doesn't this indicate the mind (spirit) is more powerful than matter (brain). I don't know how you explain this in terms of strict materialism. (It only goes to show that human beings are 'infinitely' more complex than any of the standards academic or scientific models of man.)

D. 'Physicians do not sysematically prescribe placebos to their patients. Hence they have no way of comparing the effects of the drugs they prescribe to placebos. When they prescribe a treatment and it works, their natural tendency is to attribute the cure to the treatment. But there are thousands of treatments that
have worked in clinical practice throughout history. Powdered stone worked. So did lizard’s blood and crocodile dung, and pig’s teeth and dolphin’s genitalia and frog’s sperm. [1.]

- Isn't this evidence that it's a mistake to treat human beings as if they were mere clumps of matter? Doesn't this suggest we'd be better off to treat people as the spiritual beings Christianity claims they are?

Notes;
1. The emperor's new drugs - Irving Kirsch/p.56
2. 'Because of the power of the placebo effect, almost anything that is believed in seems to work for some types of medical problems. That is why the late Arthur K. Shapiro described the history of medicine as largely the history of the placebo effect. It is also why clinical experience alone cannot tell us whether a particular
physical substance is an effective treatment. [1.]
- Can we say medicine made so little progress for so long because of the placebo effect?
3. 'Studies of the placebo effect reveal that, all else being equal, taking placebo pills four times per day is more effective than taking them only twice a day; brand-name placebos are more effective than placebos presented as generic drugs; placebo injections are more effective than placebo pills; and more expensive placebos are better than cheaper ones. p.110
- The materialist is going to have to give us an explanation for this. I don't see how he's going to do it.
4. 'Placebos can yield substantial clinical benefit that can last for months or even years. p.113

Confusion between origins and development

A great deal of the confusion that exists in the Creation/Evolution debate stems from a failure to distinguish between origins and development.

Quotes and comments;

A. "The idea of evolution was like the kindling of a torch which suddenly cast a brilliant light upon the mysterious processes of nature, the dark recesses of creation, and gave us the simple, nay, the only possible explanation of them ; evolution is the magic formula through which we learn the secret of the apparently insoluble riddle of the origin and development of the infinite variety of terrestrial creatures." [1.]

- The basic flaw in evolutionary theory (as it's presented in textbooks, etc.) is that origin and development are conflated. These are utterly different phenomenon. To confuse them is a category mistake, and to consign yourself to wandering in a swamp of error. If Darwinists had restricted themselves to giving us a theory of development, they would have been on solid ground. Evolutionary theory can (theoretically) be helpful in showing us the development that has occurred since the time of the original creation. What the theory cannot do is show us how the biological world originated.

I agree with those who claim it's a mistake to think 'evolution' can be successfully employed to explain the origin of anything. (Development yes; origin no.) [2.]

Summary;
In my opinion, a christian can be an evolutionist in terms of development, but he cannot be one in terms of origins. (i.e. if he wants to remain orthodox, and true to the intent of scripture.)

M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Philosophy of revelation - Bavinck/p.43 [quoting L. Reinhardt]
2. What are commonly referred to as species, are, in terms of biblical creation theory, developments from basic animal kinds. (i.e. a much larger or broader classification)
3. These two realms of inquiry (origins and development) are the equivalent (roughly) of 'micro-evolution' and of 'macro-evolution.'
4. There's a connection here to Greek philosophy; with the debate over being and becoming.

Stasis vs Evolution

One major line of data that sheds doubt on the veracity of evolutionary theory concerns the matter of stasis. Since this was not predicted by the theory, and is in fact the opposite of what the theory predicted, it serves as strong counter evidence.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Science Daily reported that the world’s oldest fig wasp fossil has been discovered on the Isle of Wight. “The fossil wasp is almost identical to the modern species, proving that this tiny but specialized insect has remained virtually unchanged for over 34 million years.” [1.]

- Gee; I thought nothing made sense other than in terms of evolution. I guess this story of the wasp doesn't make sense then. I guess 'stasis' doesn't make sense then either. I guess living fossils don't make sense. I guess all these hundreds of 'anomalies don't make sense. (Maybe it's Dobzhansky's famous edict is what doesn't make sense.) [3.]

I guess the fact various creatures don't change over tens of millions of years (even as much as 100 million years or more if we're to believe our betters) doesn't make sense either. (Maybe it's the theory of evolution that doesn't make sense.)

Maybe it's these long ages (attributed to fossils) that doesn't make sense. I'm not so surprised that there's no 'progress' in evolution; what surprises me is that lack of devolution. If these age claims were correct I would expect to see a lot more genetic deterioration.

Summary;
It's clear to me that stasis isn't the exception, it's the rule. If the data is really what's important (as evolutionists claim) then it's time for the textbooks to be changed to reflect these new discoveries. What doesn't make sense to me is how people can still believe in the theory of M2M evolution in the face of all the evidence against it. On the one hand 'evolution' is presented as an unstoppable force that controls all things, but then we see numerous examples of stasis. Apparently the all transforming mechanism of evolution isn't so powerful after all.

If the wasp were the only example of 'stasis' we have, the data could easily be ignored - but we have hundreds of examples of so called stasis. Evolutionary theory only makes sense if people are willing to ignore this data.

Notes;
1. Fossils Without Evolution Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/18/2010
2. ' Dr. Steve Compton of London’s Natural History Museum stated an evolutionary theory rescue device called “give the mystery a name” when he said, “Although we often think of the world as constantly changing, what this fossil gives us is an example of something remaining unchanged for tens of millions of years – something which in biology we call ‘stasis’.” [above]
- As far as I'm concerned the refutation of evolutionary theory is staring him in the face, but he doesn't have the courage to admit it.
3. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
- T. Dobzhansky
4. 'Science Daily tossed in a little humor on that point in its headline: “World’s Oldest Fig Wasp Fossil Proves That If It Works, Don’t Change It.” But is that an evolutionary law of nature? If monkeys worked, why did they change into humans, and why are there still monkeys?' [above]
- This well known saying refers of course to human beings, and to human behavior, to human intentionality, etc. It's utterly bogus to use this phrase in conjunction with the blind, random forces of evolutionary change. ( If this 'law of science' (cough) were true there would be no evolutionary change. I guess it depends on what we call change. I see no evidence one animal kind transformed into another kind. All I see are fairly trivial variations on a theme.)
5. 'The article mentions a 100-million-year old fossil of a gecko “the same sophisticated method of toe adhesion that allows it to walk easily on vertical and even inverted surfaces - a capability that served it well when it was skittering away from dinosaurs then, or is skipping through the jungles of Southeast Asia today.” [above]
- Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe the Gecko hasn't changed in one hundred million years? (This is a number far too large to be rationally comprehended in my view.) During this time continents broke apart, mountain ranges rose and fell, seas appeared and disappeared, lemurs turned into leprechauns, dinosaurs turned into butterflies... and the gecko never changed. Really?

Genetic code and the shipwreck of materialism

The genetic code that undergirds all life forms on our planet looks increasingly complex, the more researchers study it.

Quotes and comments;

A. May 06, 2010 — The leading science journal [Nature] reported the discovery of a second genetic code – the “code within the code” – that has just been cracked by molecular biologists and computer scientists.
...The new code is called the Splicing Code. It lives embedded within the DNA. It directs the primary genetic code, in very complex but now predictable ways, how and when to assemble genes and regulatory elements.

'Heidi Ledford led off with an article called “The code within the code.” Tejedor and Valcárcel followed with “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code.' [1.]

- Evolutionists and materialists have No business using concepts and words like code. They claim to be materialists, and insist that no intelligence lies behind creation (living organisms) but yet they persist in using words like code. This is deeply dishonest. (As Cornelius Van Til would say; they give evidence that they know God, but yet they deny him.) If people are going to be materialists they ought to speak as materialists. If being a creationist is such a great sin why do they persist in speaking in terms of intelligence and design? Why do they speak as creationists if creation is an absurdity? People like this are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, to use the old phrase. The fact they don't know what else to say, the fact they don't have other concepts to use, should be all the evidence they need that materialism can't account for the data.

B. “Understanding a complex biological system is like understanding a complex electronic circuit.”

- A materialist has no right to compare anything biological with a humanly created machine. The great hero of atheism David Hume said so himself. (Has he been tossed onto the same bonfire he once consigned all metaphysical books to?) He denied the validity of the organism to machine analogy, but now we see materialists themselves using this analogy in their comparisons.

Is it necessary to point out the electronic circuits are designed. I don't know of any that have 'emerged' from the action of lightning on barren rocks.

C. "This time there is no simple table – in its place are algorithms that combine more than 200 different features of DNA with predictions of RNA structure.''

- Are we to believe algorithms are the product of wind and rain? I might believe some Hollywood movies are the product of wind and rain, but not this splicing code.

Summary;
The great pretense of materialism is that every phenomenon can be explained purely in terms of physical law. If people want to be intellectually fulfilled materialists (or atheists) they're going to have to come up with in explanation for genetic code in terms of physical law. They need to tell us the physics of code formation. I see no way this can be done myself. Can you really have symbols without intelligent, personal agents to create them? I think the whole idea is absurd; like accounting for the development of the computer in terms of weather patterns. In the specified complexity of the DNA complex, materialism has met its match. It hangs like a corpse from the living tree of code.

Notes;
1. Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed 05/06/2010
May 06, 2010 — It’s sometimes difficult to assess the impact of a scientific paper when it is first published, but one that came out on the cover of Nature today has potential to equal the discovery of the genetic code. The leading science journal reported the discovery of a second genetic code – the “code within the code” – that has just been cracked by molecular biologists and computer scientists. Moreover, they used information technology – not evolutionary theory – to figure it out.
2. While the evidence against the Darwinist model continues to pile up, christian liberals continue to deny there's even a single valid argument against it. They continue to claim the creationists have nothing going for them, and that the Darwin model is utterly sound. I can only wonder what they're looking at when they make these claims.
3. If Materialism is dead what (false system) will replace it? I can see three alternatives; out right atheism (I know there's a God but I don't give a damn), some kind of space colony idea (the creator isn't divine), or a vague kind of agnosticism (I have no idea what happened, but I don't really care).

And seeing they see not

Richard Dawkins made a career out of painting a picture of the human eye as a defective bit of engineering. Recent discoveries however, made since he first made his public splash, have continued to show how wrong he was.

Quotes and comments;

A. May 07, 2010 — Darwinists have claimed for years that the human eye is an example of bad design, because it is wired backwards – the photoreceptors are located behind a tangle of blood vessels and other material. But then in 2007, German scientists found that cone-shaped cells called Müller cells act like waveguides that transmit the light through the tangles straight into the photoreceptors.

Now, more facts have come to light about those Müller cells (also called retinal glial cells). Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa have found out that they do far more than just conduct light to the photoreceptors. Kate McAlpine reported for New Scientist that Müller cells offer several advantages. They act as noise filters, tuners and color focusers...' [1.]

- The bad design (of the eye) argument is simply a bad argument; not to mention a glaring example of man's ingratitude and fallenness. We might call it a badly designed argument. Man's heart, and thus his thinking, shows more signs of being degraded than do man's physical organs. The eye is a masterpiece; especially compared with the darkness of man's thinking and philosophy.

Would that people could think as clearly as they see. It's sad that people can't think as truthfully as they see. This of course can't be. Our minds don't adjust, readjust and focus automatically, to see to it that we percieve things accurately and helpfully. With our thinking we're largely on our own. We see a compelling example of this in the constant nagging criticisms of the eye by Darwinian apologists. They use their god given abilities to complain and condemn, instead of using them to praise and worship. Their hatred of god turns them into blind men talking about ugliness of the sunset. They put on dark sunglasses and complain about the day being cloudy. Anyone who isn't dazzled by the glories of the human eye is ideologically blind.

From an evolutionary point of view nothing can be defective. Since there are no standards and no goals nothing can be said to fail or be deficient. When Darwinists speak of things being badly designed they're not speaking as evolutionists, but as engineers. They're engaged in criticism when they have no basis for their analysis or conclusions.

We see in this example how much (if not most) Darwinist criticism of design is based on ignorance. People like Dawkins somehow convince themselves that they possess complete knowledge about various aspects of biology. In this they show their spiritual and moral blindness, as this pretense stems from a desire to condemn creationism rather than stem from a desire for the truth.

B. 'However, Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.

- When the heart is 'wired wrong' a person will always end up twisting the data in their own favor. If a person is committed to evolutionism (as Miller is) they will always find a way to see things in an evolutionary light. They just put on their Darwin glasses, and presto! They see evidence for evolution everywhere they look. (In fact they're staring into the multiple mirrors of their own worldview.)

We see in this example how intensely some people hate God. Their worldview bias has so completely twisted their thinking that they see darkness where they should see light. Though they claim that what they hate are certain 'fallacious' theological doctrines (e.g. Providence) it's clear to me that what they hate is the true and living triune God.

Notes;
1. Can Darwin Be Rescued from a New Eye Discovery? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/07/2010
- The above link contains block quotes from the pertinent article and is well worth reading.
2. 'These findings were made by Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak at Technion and published in Physical Review Letters.1 In the abstract, they said, “The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.” Their findings specifically argued against the idea that the retina is poorly wired.' [above]