Thursday, January 28, 2010

The meaning of the universe

I've commented earlier about the Gifford lectures given by Alister McGrath. Today I want to make some comments about the last in the series.

Lecture 6: Conclusion – Clues to the Meaning of the Universe?

Quotes and comments;

p/2. William Paley advocated an approach to natural theology based on intelligible and beautiful outcomes; the approach I adopted find a new sense of wonder in the vast, complex processes which brought them about, adding to – not diminishing from – the sense of awe and amazement that arises from encountering and
engaging nature.' [1.]

- I don't see any awe in the random motions of chance. That people feel awe in their experience of nature I don't doubt; what I do doubt is that people feel any awe in the 'processes' of random chance. I don't believe that blind chance created the vast reservoir of complex information that we see expressed in the world. I find it impossible to believe such a notion, as the evidence against it is massive and profound. This debate isn't about the experience of nature, but rather it's about accounting for the living world. (M. seems disingenuous here.)

2. Dawkins appears to believe that the case for a natural theology is weakenedthrough recognizing the forces within nature that have led to the world aswe know it. Far from it; we now have an additional source of wonder in thoseprocesses themselves, and the “cosmic coincidences” that enabled them to
operate in this manner.

- The key word here is forces. Surely it's obvious that no force is capable of producing complex, specified information. To claim physical law can create the information required to build cells is naive, and the idea belongs in the past. (McGrath wants to bury Paley, but for some reason he doesn't want to bury Darwin... despite the fact Paley was a lot closer to the truth than Charles Darwin.)
- theistic evolutionists are always telling us how wonderful and marvelous the processes of random chance are. I find this mystifying. (Do they also find rust a source of awe?)

2. Where some have argued that the existence and at least some of the characteristics of God can be deduced from the natural world, I argue for a more modest and realistic approach, based on the idea of resonance or “empirical fit” between the Christian worldview and what is actually observed.

- Find me someone who doesn't claim a 'resonance' between their view and the world. This seems awfully weak. Richard Dawkins himself tells us he's now an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I imagine this means he feels this resonance M. is talking about between his views and the world.
- How do you argue with someone who tells you they feel a resonance in their heart?

6. An appeal is thus made to the notion that the explanatory power
of an explanation is itself seen as evidence of its correctness, an assumption
that is found in most forms of “inference to the best explanation.”
- the E. complains that the idea of creation explains too much (i.e. everything)
- the C. complains that E. explains not only everything... but its opposite as well.
- So where does that leave us? Can explanations explain too much? How would we know?

7. The hypothesis of natural selection seemed to offer an intellectual vantage point from which the biological landscape could be understood in a more profound manner than before, allowing surprising or puzzling phenomena – such as the continued existence of rudimentary organs – to be accommodated with
relative ease.

- Rudimentary organs? I assume he's talking about the so called vestigial organs so popular with Victorian evolutionists like darwin and Haeckel. I thought most people (even theistic e.s) had abandoned this notion as fallacious, but apparently M. still believes it. (He doesn't tell us what organs he thinks 'rudimentary' - no doubt a prudent course of action.)

- The list of vestigial organs has shrunk (in the popular sci mags) form over a hundred to maybe a half dozen or less.

- E. theory in no way explains these organs. It predicted them, but their functionality is strong evidence against the theory. M. is such a staunch defender of evolution that he portrays vestigial organs as evidence for the theory. This is amazing. (One can understand why Dawkins seems to be so fond of him.)

- there may be a couple of non-functional organs (I tend to doubt it) but this in my opinion wouldn't be evidence for e. theory but evidence of a created organ that has suffered mutation and loss of function.


12. Augustine exploits this notion in his interpretation of Genesis 1: 12, which he holds to mean that the earth has received the power or capacity to produce things by itself:
Scripture has stated that the earth brought forth the crops and the trees causally (causaliter), in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth. God created what was to be in times to come in the earth from the beginning, in what I might call the “roots of time”.

- If one plants a seed in the earth and an apple tree comes up, this does Not mean the earth was given the power to produce that tree. The capacity to produce the tree was in the seed, not in the earth. The earth didn't produce the seed, it only gave it nutrients. The whole point of the information critique of Darwinism is that matter cannot produce the seed; cannot produce the information in the seed. (M. apparently feels that it can. I find this implausible. I don't personally know of any rocks that can write computer code.)

12. The image of a seed provided Augustine with a suitable analogy on which he could draw to support his more general thesis about the role of potential existing entities within the earth prior to their appearance in mature form when the conditions were right: “There is, indeed, in seeds some likeness to
what I am describing because of the future developments stored up in them.”

- and what would these 'entitities' be? (I guess they're information 'packets' or they're not... but it seems his analogy has no actual referent.) I get the impression that A. was being influenced by old Greek ideas of evolution here.

12. The notion of the seed is heuristic, providing an inexact, though helpful, means of visualization for the theologically difficult notion of a hidden force within nature through which latent things are enacted.

- Hidden force? What might that be? Did God create this 'force' or not? This appears to be an analogy for ignorance. (I think he'd have been better off to stick with the seeds, and not try and make an analogy out of it.) A seed contains information, a force (as I think of it) contains no information. What we need here is information (i.e. specified complexity created by an intelligent agent) and not merely some force. (i.e. some physical law)

13. Augustine’s basic argument is that God created the world complete with a series of dormant multiple potencies, which were actualized in the future through divine providence. Where some might think of creation in terms of God’s insertion of new kinds of plants and animals ready-made, as it were,
into an already existing world, Augustine rejects this as inconsistent with the overall witness of Scripture. Rather, God must be thought of as creating in that very first moment the potencies for all the kinds of living things that would come later, including humanity.

- With all due respect, this sounds like mysticism to me. (I consider theistic evolution to be mysticism. It speaks of forces and potencies and similar abstractions instead of physical realities. It never gets down to business and tells you what happened when and where; how things happened. It tells you that somehow some apes became ape men and that somewhere along the line they acquired a soul... but there's no details... it's all a painting done on water with a brush made of water.)

- McGrath wants us to believe that man somehow evolved by random chance; that somehow a rock turned into an Einstein. I find this notion impossible to believe. Such a fanciful idea undervalues the complexity of humankind by orders of magnitude too great to be counted.

- I have no idea how a plain reading of Genesis can be inconsistent with the overall witness of scripture. If that statement means anything it escapes me.

- I notice that liberals don't like the idea of Providence in general (especially in terms of salvation) but that they use the idea when they speak of creation. Their use of it tends to be so vague I have little idea what they're talking about.
- I've used the term liberal, but with no desire to offend anyone. I know that Keith Ward proudly announces himself to be a liberal. [I say this after having listened to a couple dozen of his online lectures. see Gresham college]

13. This process of development, Augustine declares, is governed by fundamental laws, which reflect the will of their creator: “God has established fixed laws governing the production of kinds and qualities of beings, and bringing them out of concealment into full view.”

- McGrath tells us he chose A. as an example for his portrait of natural theology because a. hadn't been influenced by Darwin. This ignores the fact that A. was heavily influenced by Greek and other ideas of evolution. A. doesn't draw up his idea of creation out of an empty bag. (There's little difference between ancient ideas of E. and those of Darwin and Lamarck.)

13. Unsurprisingly, we find Augustine is firmly committed to what we would now term the “fixity of species”.

- M. thinks A. is wrong to believe in the fixity of species.
- Whether or not the fixity of species is true or not depends on how you define species. There seems to be a fixity at work; but at what level it's not easy to say. We can say there's a fixity of kinds; but this involves us in defining kinds. (Even E.s admit that various animals don't 'evolve' or change for as much as a hundred million years.) There's considerable evidence that programming is in place that works to maintain stasis and discourage change; that aspects of the genetic code work to preserve the identity of living organisms. The problem the e. has is to invent a way for 'evolution' to circumvent these guards. I've seen no evidence any theorist has come up with anything believable in this regard. The genetic code seems deliberately designed to prevent what is called evolution. (How the e. process could have 'evolved' such mechanisms is also a seemingly insurmountable problem.)

14. Augustine approached his text with the culturally prevalent presupposition of the fixity of species, and found nothing in the text to challenge him on this point.

- Really? Genesis says the world started with an original couple. How could anyone look around the world and think there was fixity? A. lived in the biggest cities of his time, he was aware of all the different 'races' of human beings. Wasn't this a refutation of fixity? What about accounts in the bible of giants? What of the account in the book of Job of huge creatures that seem to be the 'terrible lizards' once called dragons, and now called dinosaurs?

14. Yet the ways in which he interacts with his scientific authorities and personal experience, suggests that, on this point at least, his views would be open to correction in the light of prevailing scientific opinion.

- I read this kind of statement repeatedly, but I'm still at a loss to know how it is the liberal decides whether scientific opinion is true or false. (He usually just accepts the scientific orthodoxy of his day; and ends up a few years or decades later to have been wrong.) I'd like to know how it is scientific opinion (the opinion of scientists) can correct our views of scripture. It's not enough just to throw the idea out there; if there's no useable methodology the advice is meaningless. (It wasn't long ago that liberals were insisting everyone accept the eternal universe idea.)

Let's take an example. Various authorities deny the idea of a mind. Okay; should I as a C. accept this new knowledge or not? How am I to judge it? These same authorities deny miracles and special revelation (etc. etc.) am I supposed to accept these scientific ideas? How am I to judge them? All this stuff about allowing science to correct theology sounds nice in theory, but in practice it amounts to driving in a thick fog. (I notice that theology is never allowed to correct science; and so we know who's going to win the fight don't we?)
The trouble with all this is that materialism has been equated with (or conflated with) science. Far too often, theistic evolutionists have accepted as science what is really just materialism.

14. M. tells us A. believed that; Part of that created order takes the form of embedded causalities which emerge or evolve at a later stage.
- embedded causalities eh? Does that really mean anything? (I'm just asking; but it seems like more mysticism to me.)

14. As Augustine himself constantly and consistently emphasised, there is a danger of making biblical interpretation dependent on contemporary scientific opinion, leaving its outcome vulnerable when today’s provisional scientific consensus is replaced with tomorrow’s.

- I'm not sure what M. means by this, as this is precisely what I see c. liberals doing in our day. I see them rewriting the bible to make it match up with the scientific (i.e. materialist) dogma of the day.

15. The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) created new intellectual space for Augustine’s approach, not least in that Darwin himself explicitly created space for divine action through secondary
causes in his account of natural selection.

- I wonder how random chance (mutations) can be seen as divine action. (Maybe I need to go to Oxbridge for a few years.)

- Well; it was nice of Charles to create space for God to act in any event. (And some people think Darwin was all bad.)

15. In his original discussion of how, and to what extent, biological evolution might be accommodated theologically, Mivart appealed to the arguments of Augustine, as set out in the major work we have been considering in the present lecture:
“St. Augustine insists in a very remarkable manner on the merely derivative sense in which God’s creation of organic forms is to be understood; that is, that God created them by conferring on the material world the power to evolve them under suitable conditions.”

- Theological liberalism depends upon dismissing the early chapters of Genesis as myth, and dumping them in the rubbish heap. (Some people are willing to do that. I'm not.)

15. Augustine, we must again emphasize, neither accepted nor anticipated Darwinian evolutionary paradigms; he shared the common human condition of being limited in his intellectual options on account of his historical
location.

- McGrath keeps pretending Augustine didn't know about evolution! (If he doesn't he sure seems to.)

16. A classic doctrine of creation resonates strongly with both the notion of a “big bang” and biological evolution.

- And what if both these theories turn out to be wrong. (I'm certain M2M evolution is wrong, and I have grave doubts as to the veracity of the big bang. The singularity that it supposedly arose from, seems an impossible construct.) [2.]

17. I have sought to avoid the excesses of those theist enthusiasts who fix upon fine-tuning as certain evidence for the existence of God...'

- Certain evidence. I haven't come across any ID proponents who offer certain evidence; evidence yes, but certain evidence no. (Maybe some do; but M. gives no examples.)In fact most ID writers that I'm familiar with (e.g. Stephen Meyers)speak about the evidence for a designer, not evidence of God.

- Everyone who doesn't adopt McGrath's wishy, washy approach is some kind of enthusiast apparently. (If you know your liberals, you know that's about the worst thing you can call someone.)

18. Note; it tells you a lot about who McGrath is that he's quite willing to quote every atheist out there (including the creationist basher Ayala) but can't bring himself to quote a single ID proponent or creationist. (If you don't proclaim a belief in Darwinism you're persona non grata; you've been expelled from the dialogue; excommunicated.)

Notes;
1. The 2009 Gifford Lectures; University of Aberdeen - Alister McGrath
Lecture 6: Conclusion – Clues to the Meaning of the Universe?
2. The big bang isn't a subject I've studied, so my comments don't amount to much.
- I recently watched a documentary on the big bang by astronomers (e.g. Eric Lerner) who oppose the BB model. I think it's worth a look; The Cosmology Quest

Go to the ant and she will teach you

If we take a look at the lowly ant we can learn much about how the world works.

On a creationist website I see an article that tells me the ant provides evidence that Evolution is false. It mentions that;
''Charles Darwin recognized that ants challenged his theory of natural selection. He even mentioned it in his Origin of Species. He even asked how the situation with the lowly ant could ever be reconciled with his theory. He never did come up with an answer, and neither have modern evolutionists.'' [2.]

It then goes on to explain why;

"Darwin's problem was with the worker ants. Even though they are products of sexual reproduction, they differ greatly from their parents. They are each specialized with features their parents don't have so they can carry out their designated tasks in the nest. The problem is that these workers are sterile females, so they cannot pass on the traits that are unique from their parents. Modern evolutionists theorize that perhaps there were some lucky mutations that took place in queen ants through their evolutionary history. However, this explanation is not very credible since the oldest fossilized ants are identical to today's ants."

- Then I go to Wikipedia, (the home of PC) where everything seems to have been written by evolutionists. There I read the article on ants, and there's not a word about Darwin and his difficulties with the ant, or with any problems for evolutionary theory. Instead I read about the marvellous evolution of the ant; and all as if there were no problem at all. And not only is there no problem, there's never been a problem.

What we get seem to be verbatim reports of lessons remembered from school. (Perhaps these entries are written by school teachers during their summer months of leisure.) I see in this evidence of how science has been institutionalized, with textbooks written by bureaucrats. All is known, nothing is uncertain, and sceptics are idiots and crackpots.

- It seems the Wiki writers are so wracked with anxiety and doubt that they can't bring themselves to mention these problems. They can't seem to bear to speak honestly and openly; but instead fill the pages with politically correct transcriptions of old lecture notes. You wonder what they're afraid of. Is the truth really that frightening to them, that they have to ban it? (The stories of people trying unsuccessfully, to correct falsehoods on the site are legion.) We see that the great horror story for most people is reality. (No one is exempt from this; it's our greatest fear.) We all fear that the things we believe to be true, will one day be proven to have been false.

- If you're familiar with comments made by evolutionists about creation on the Internet you know how vulgar, rude and abusive they often are. This strikes me as revealing a great anxiety about the veracity of the theory. Anyone defending creation is accused of being stupid and ignorant at the very least. These people claim you cannot possibly disagree with them and have any intelligence or education. (Most of these apologists for Evolution know virtually nothing of the critique against evolution by the way.) This is blatantly untrue, but so great is their anxiety that they feel forced to pretend that it is.

- We see this institutionalizing of ideas in other cases as well; e.g. the idealism of the early communists becomes party doctrine, and saying the wrong word will get you a ticket to slave labor camp. We see it in science. Once the home of hobbyists and the lone investigator, science has become institutionalized, and people who once talked of the need to defend the likes of Galileo, are now brutally attacking anyone who disagrees with them. W see it in Christianity, where early idealism was replaced by institutionalization, and the rigid imposition of official creeds, state churches, and the like. (Many more cases could be sited). Now we see that Wikipedia has fallen prey to the same kind of thing. It's been taken over by ideologues who won't allow anyone to stray from the party line.

- Whatever you think of Charles Darwin, he at least was willing to talk about problems with evolutionary theory. Evolutionists in our day seem unwilling to do this. This says to me that they have a lot of doubt about the theory, and feel it must be protected at all cost. Even the lowly ant must have a shroud cast over it.

Notes;
1. " Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise." - Pro 6:6
2. Ants challenge Natural Selection
- Creation Moments website
3. Wikipedia/Ants
- I don't like the fact that articles aren't signed. I think this leads to all kinds of abuse.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

A critical look at the idea of convergent evolution

In this post I want to look at the the fourth of Alister McGrath's lectures on 'The fine tuned Universe'. I especially want to make a few remarks about convergent evolution. (The new saving mechanism for Darwinism.)

Quotes and comments;

Lecture #4. The enigmas of evolutionary biology

p. 6. Teleological mechanisms in living organisms are thus biological adaptations, which have arisen as a result of the process of natural selection. [1.]

- Contra McGrath, I see no evidence for the claim that natural selection can create new information.
- If copying mistakes could create new information, and thus new functional organs, we might expect that any hack writer could produce a masterpiece by copying out Shakespeare incorrectly.

p. 11. 'Conway Morris’ case is based on a remarkable compilation of examples of convergent evolution, in which two or more lineages have independently evolved similar structures and functions. Conway Morris’s examples range from the aerodynamics of hovering moths and hummingbirds to the use of silk by spiders and some insects to capture prey.

- What McGrath sees as evidence of CE others see as evidence against evolutionary theory. These examples only provide evidence for CE if M2M evolution is true.

What's going on is that the need for miracles has multiplied. i.e. if evolution requires a miracle, the idea of CE requires dozens of miracles. The need to create specified information out of thin air has multiplied many times; and if it was impossible even once (in my opinion) how much more impossible is this new requirement?

I keep wondering how much non-confirmation it will take for some of these people to wake up and smell the coffee. They're drowning in evidence against evolutionary theory but they claim they don't see any of it. It's hard to see how more evidence against the theory will help. After a person has rejected a certain amount of evidence they become hardened against any criticism of a theory. They've gone too far down a particular road to turn back.

You might think that these examples disprove Darwin's idea of an evolutionary tree. But nothing is allowed to shed doubt on evolution to people in the liberal camp. What evolves is not 'lineages' but the evolutionary story. It morphs to meet non-confirming data, it changes so it doesn't have to admit refutation.

- CE is based on the certain truth that evolutionary theory is correct. That being said, the data now indicates the evolutionary tree model is wrong. This is taken by people like M. to mean not that E. theory is wrong, but merely that the old Darwinian model is wrong. Therefore (using the best Darwinian logic) CE must be true. Thus we see that the icon of Darwin's tree has been sacrificed to save the larger theory of M2M evolution.

I guess we have to see this as progress; as the willingness to accept at least some non-confirming evidence. Unfortunately all that seems to have happened is that one just so story has been replaced by another.

- First the 'liberals' defended evolution, and now they're defending convergent evolution. (One can only wonder what they'll defend next. Anything I suppose; anything that's au courant.) It might be valid to accuse some creationists of being too critical of E. biology, but it's more the case that liberals aren't nearly critical enough. They seem incapable of looking at E. theory in a critical light. They're willing to look at anything in the bible in a critical light; but not E. theory; that's a taboo subject for them, one that's close to being sacred ground.

p. 12. Examples of convergent evolution are legion. For those not familiar with the idea, two examples may be noted briefly.
1. Photosynthesis. Three mechanisms are known to exist, usually referred to as Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM), C-3 and C-4. C-4 photosynthesis is known to have evolved independently at least 31 times in 18 different families of flowering plants during the past 8 million years, giving rise to a total of nearly 10,000 species of plants. CAM is also known to have evolved on multiple occasions.

- If you believe that you'll believe anything. Examples of CE aren't legion; what is legion are stories purporting to be CE.
- Photosynthesis hadn't evolved once; let alone 31 times. There is no possible way such an incredibly complex (information dependent) process could have evolved by random chance, but the blind movements of matter. This isn't even remotely possible. [2.]

p. 12. 'Eyes have evolved on multiple independent occasions, taking at least nine distinct forms: pinhole eyes, two kinds of camera-lens eyes (found in vertebrates and octopuses), curved reflector eyes, along with several kinds of compound, multi-lensed eyes. Compound eyes have evolved independently in crustaceans, annelid worms (sabellids), and bivalve molluscs. Camera-like eyes have evolved not only in vertebrates and octopuses, but independently in jumping spiders, some snails, alciopid
polychaete worms, cubozoan jellyfish, and the backward looking eyes of
coral reef shrimp.

- Now you see why Richard Dawkins doesn't mind 'debating' Alister McGrath. Since M. accepts all the nonsense evolutionists dish out, Dawkins reasonably thinks he's won any debate before its begun. And he's right. Here you have a respected Christian figure accepting the wildest evolutionary story out there; namely that the miracle of evolution not only happened once, but happened hundreds of times.

- Contra McGrath, the eye did not evolve, is not the product of matter in motion. Such a thing is impossible. M. seems to accept the materialist idea that life forms are the result of mindless chemical reactions. (The way he talks you'd think he'd never even heard of specified information.) There is no way evolutionists can prove that even one eye evolved; but yet here McGrath is accepting the idea all manner of eyes evolved. One would like to know where the proof is. All the evolutionists give us are just so stories; stories that are hardly an improvement on the vague musings Charles Darwin gave us.

p. 13. 'This leads Conway Morris to make the point that even an essentially random search process will end up identifying stable outcomes in biological space.' [1.]

- And so an all wise creator God has been replaced by a random search process. (Kind of makes you want to get out a pen and write a hymn.)

Notes;
1. The finely tuned universe - Gifford lectures/2009/McGrath/#4
2. Shining light on the evolution of photosynthesis - by Rick Swindell
3. If we compare devolution (with its loss of information) to memory loss; we might say that Adam's children have 'forgotten' who they are.
4. In my opinion McGrath wants an argument for God's existence that's non-falsifiable, and this is why he argues against ID arguments.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Shelley and the romance of other worlds

While theists point to the cosmos as evidence of God, materialists point to it as evidence that there is no God. An example of the latter is the poet Percy Shelley. These are tricky arguments, and people (on both sides) can easily make mistakes, as they project onto this canvas their own wishes.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Queen Mab for instance, uses the vastness of the cosmos and the plurality of worlds as an argument in favour of Shelley’s own atheism: ‘the plurality of worlds, – the indefinite immensity of the universe is a most awful subject of contemplation. He who rightly feels its mystery and grandeur, is no longer in danger of seduction from the falsehoods of religious systems, or of deifying the principle of the universe.’ [1.]

- Shelley (not a favorite of mine) talks of the 'seduction' of Christianity... and how the vastness of space innoculates him from these temptations. You wonder what the man meant. I suppose the argument goes something like; since space is so big there can't be a god. This makes no sense to me. In his defense I don't think people then had any idea of how big a universe needs to be; that the parameters of expansion vs collapse demand a huge universe, etc. This was a very popular idea at the time however, and still is.

I suppose people like Shelley also imagined this vast universe was populated with poets and dandies like themselves... and that this somehow disproved God, or better yet, disproved the christian god. I suppose the idea is that the bible gives us an earth-centric vision; and that the newly discovered (if it was newly discovered or perhaps rediscovered) vastness of space disproved this narrow focus on earth. i.e. that the huge universe of the telescopes disproved the small universe of Jesus and the apostles.

- How does Shelley know what it means to 'rightly' know the mystery of this vastness? I guess he takes his own sentiments to be the standard.

- Shelley claims that the Christian God is merely a 'deifying' of the universe; or what he calls the 'principle' of the universe. (What he means by that I'm not sure.) But how does he know all this? If God isn't the cause what is? Nothing? What is this 'principle' he's put his faith in? It's easy to argue against the plain word of the Bible, but how can we argue against this whiff of a principle? How do we even know what it is? He's replaced something solid with a speculative mist.

- I get the impression it's the 'plurality of worlds' that is the most influential component in this new cosmology for S. I get the further impression it's the idea these worlds are populated by poetic aliens that is the deciding factor; that all rests on this imagined reality. This seems a slender thread to base one's worldview on; and a slender defense against the 'seductions' of Christianity. (By speaking of seductions he shows us he has a reason to want to believe in this plurality of worlds.) After all, there is no proof these things exist, and why should we believe (without evidence) that they do. The case against Christianity was based on critiques that various doctrines had no evidence to support them, but here he believes in aliens without any evidence... and that's perfectly okay. This seems hypocritical; you have no right to use x critique on your opponent if you're not willing to apply it to yourself.

- Shelley seemed to believe (or Roberts) that there is some kind of rational or logical argument here; but I don't see one. i.e. why should a plurality of world disprove Christianity? As I said before; we don't have any evidence aliens exist; and even if they did this still wouldn't disprove Christianity, although I agree that it would seem to create great difficulties for it. But it's a weak argument indeed, since it's based almost solely on wishful thinking, of merely hoping for evidence rather than evidence. The 'idea' seems to be; since space is so huge it simply must contain other peoples such as ourselves. Must? I think not. This isn't a logical argument, it's an emotional (or poetic?) one. To put it in a logical form you'd have to say; 'Any true god would only create one intelligent race. There is more than one intelligent. race; therefore there is no god. (You could put it in the form; the Christian God claimed to have created only one race; there are more than one; therefore the Christian God has been disproved. The trouble with that is that the bible doesn't make this claim.)

B. Let's look at a current view of the cosmos, and see if it sheds any light on this issue.

"Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in [10 to the 10th power],
the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop." - Stephen Hawking [2.]

- So we might say that his atheism was based on a failure to correctly understand the cosmos. (This being ironic in that he thought it was his up to date understanding of cosmology that led him to abandon theism)

Notes;
1. History of science fiction - Adam Roberts/91
2. Finely tuned universe - Alister McGrath; Gifford Lecture#2
- Along the same lines, the 'new atheism' is (in my opinion) based in large measure on a fallacious belief in M2M evolution.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Is science a quest for truth?

We're told by almost everyone that people everywhere seek the truth. Even Christian apologists claim that this is the case. I want to address a couple questions; do men really seek the truth? Is this what science is all about?

Quotes and comments;

A. 'In no way does a truly Christian natural theology concern itself with the quest for temporary explanatory gaps in the scientific view of the world. It offers an alternative way of viewing nature, which may at times challenge exaggerated versions of the scientific method, yet welcomes and sees itself as part of the human quest for truth, whether scientific or religious.' - Alister McGrath [1.]

- Gee Alister, how does one know X is a 'temporary' gap? Isn't that the whole point? No one would say only God could account for X if they thought it was a temporary gap!
McGrath just jumps over this problem as if it doesn't exist; as if all 'gaps' were temporary. He talks as if there was nothing materialist science couldn't theoretically comprehend, as if there's nothing materialism won't one day explain, as if there were no gaps. (But as I've said before, if there are no gaps in the materialist account of reality, we'll be hard pressed to claim it isn't true.)

- McGrath gives us the typical 'liberal' view that the natural man is desperately seeking truth... but for some reason can't find it. (Maybe he's yet to stumble into the right aisle in the library, or onto the right book.) In other words he denies what the Bible says; "No one seeketh the truth, no not one..." I take this seemingly harsh statement to mean that there is no 'human quest for truth.''

The liberal response to this is to say, ''while it's true that the natural man is biased against spiritual truth, this doesn't affect his hunger for physical truth.'' I think this is a facile response; and one that makes a distinction that doesn't really exist. We all know that the issue of origins is intimately connected to 'spiritual' truths; to whether or not a man accepts or rejects God. (Not to mention other areas as well.)

- The truth of our situation is that we live in a God created universe; a universe that was designed and is 'upheld' by a divine Person. It goes against all orthodox Christian theology to claim that the natural man wants to know this truth about his environment. This rather is the last thing he wants to find out, the last thing he wants to know. If it can mean anything to say he seeks the truth, it can only mean he seeks to know the truth if, and only if, it doesn't point to divine creation.

- Take a look at history and you'll see how weak this human quest for truth really is. If this was the universal quest M. claims it is why did modern science take so long to come into existence? As I see it the modern success of science is largely a matter of population growth and the development of technology. I don't see it as evidence of a quest for truth at all.

- What man the rebel seeks is confirmation of his desire to be ultimate and autonomous... and to have a godless universe. I think we can see indirect evidence of this quest for a godless universe in the recent sf novels where human beings create their own (micro) universes. (e.g. the recent novels of Karl Schroeder) At the very least I see this universe creation as a metaphor for man's desire to be his own god. (i.e. he doesn't seek Truth, but instead seeks godhood.)

Notes;
1. A fine tuned universe; The Gifford Lectures for 2009: Alister Mcgrath [Lecture#2/p.7]
- Online at University of Aberdeen
2. I both like and dislike McGrath... so I'm not picking on him here. I've read him with profit, but always find myself disagreeing with a lot of things he says.
3. A 'truly' christian natural theology is of course the one he has.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Intelligence and the new science

Just a few more comments on 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyers. I don't think the old (naturalistic) definitions of science are going to hold up. Sooner or later science will have to be redefined so as to include intelligent agents.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'He [Ruse] argued that science must assume that "there are no powers, seen or unseen, that interfere with or otherwise make inexplicable the normal working of material objects.' [1.]

- The trouble with the game of defining intelligence out of science is that the world is changing. In the past science has dealt almost exclusively with the 'physical' world, but ever increasingly science is now dealing with the humanly constructed world... and this process will only increase. The problem with the old definitions (such as championed by Ruse) is that they can't adapt to this change. e.g. how can you rule out intelligence when you're dealing with humanly made artifacts, events and effects?

Are we supposed to believe intelligence had nothing to do with creating various software programs? With genetically engineered plants? The old definition/s of science will have to change to include intelligent interference. (If you want to call it that.) There isn't any law of nature that writes computer games. Is science just supposed to ignore all of the humanly constructed world? We don't have to just account for 'natural' events and objects, but for humanly made events and objects.

- What this means, if we follow the 'naturalistic' definition, is that you can't have any scientific explanations of computers, or computer networks, of pharmaceutical drugs, of rockets, of Mars landers, etc. What then are you left with? What are people who study these things doing? If it's not science what is it? If these people are scientists, who and what are they? (If we look at this from the level of physics we can say that some particles are engaged in intelligently designed projects and some aren't.)

B. 'As philosopher Nancey Murphy explains, methodological naturalism forbids reference "to creative intelligence" in scientific theories.' [2]

- Forbids? Let's take one of the newer Sf novels that deal with nano-technology. I read one not too long ago, where the whole planet was one big nano-tech network. (If I can put it in those terms.) This network was then run by various computer programs. The whole world (weather included) was a kind of virtual reality made real if I can put it that way. How would a methodological naturalist (e.g. Murphy) go about doing science on such a world? If she can't refer to intelligence she's going to be lost isn't she?

- But of course it's just a game to say that 'science' must exclude any idea of intelligence. This is reminiscent of regulations written by committees of bureaucrats. Real scientists, working in the real world, don't pay any attention to these professorial definitions. (Why the rest of us must pretend that they do, I don't know.)

Notes;
1. Signature in the Cell - Stephen Meyer/418
2. " page 434
3. It was a few years ago, and I'm afraid I can't remember the title; although I'm fairly sure it was by the Canadian writer Karl Schroeder.
- Let's go back to the planet in question. Let's say some spaceship blunders upon the planet by some accident, on a routine exploration mission. Let's say the crew knows nothing of nano-technology. Would they be able come to true explanations for things by engaging in methodological naturalism? Would they be able to comprehend things correctly without positing intelligent agents behind things? Would they not require an idea of design to come to the truth?
- As a philosopher, don't you want a tool you can use to decide whether or not a world you're looking at is 'natural' or intelligently constructed?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Darwin and the toy universe

The claim is sometimes made that computer programs are going to solve the riddle of life's origin. Since this project doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon, people are going to have to find ways to analyze the claims and process.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'A “virtual primordial soup” cooks up life in a computer program in a “toy universe,” according to reporter Leslie Mullen at Space.com. She wrote, “The power of computer processing could one day solve the riddle of life’s origin.” [1.]

- An old Sf story by Jack Williamson featured a 'toy' planet that was used to demonstrate evolution. (Pygmy Planet/1931) What Williamson did analogically, Darwinists have now done digitally. (Or, pretended to do.) Computer animation is turning into the only 'proof' materialists have for the truth of evolution. The trouble is that these films don't simulate the origin of living things, they merely film someone's pet speculation. This is mythmaking pretending to be science.
We could compare this to someone making a film of the Genesis account, and then pointing to the film as evidence of creation.

- Ever wonder why we never hear of any of these 'simulations' disproving the theory of evolution? That these models end up showing what their designers want them to is about as surprising as hitting the button on a jack-in-the-box and having the jack pop up.
You turn the crank and the jester sings, ''me thinks it is a weasel." I can only hope that one day people will wake up to the fact they're being deceived. [By the way these mechanical toys go back to the ancient Greeks; as does the story about M2M evolution.]

Simulation;
Mid-14c., "a false show, false profession," from O.Fr. simulation, from L. simulationem (nom. simulatio) "an imitating, feigning," noun of action from simulare "imitate," from stem of similis "like" (see similar).

- The pretense is that these 'simulations' of evolution are the same as what has happened in the past. This is impossible for several reasons. Computer programs (the manipulation of 1s and 0s) are not the same as living organisms; not now, not ever. These people are trying to simulate what they imagined happened hundreds of millions of years ago, or more. They have no way of knowing what it is they're even trying to simulate. At the very best we see simulations of theory; animated theory if you will.

B. 'EvoGrid is “a computer creation concept that would be a digital version of the primordial soup,” wrote Mullen.' [2.}

- This supposed recreation of early earth is about as meaningful as a digital version of the Mars we find in the novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

- Watching Dr. Who will give you a better idea of the future than these programs will give you a true picture of the past. (Yes; I'm sure it's a lot of fun; but it's not biology and it's not science.)

- These programs bear about as much relationship to reality as a spinning top does to a planet.
- Serious scientists investigating the real world, or children playing in a sandbox?

C. 'He [Damer] has visions of expanding EvoGrid into versions tuned for astrobiology and SETI. He did not explain how a programmer can do tuning without any guiding human influence. But he didn’t stop there; he wants biologists of the future to translate his digital organisms into real creatures. Then he wants to create cyber-physical life forms that can colonize other planets.

- In other words, he wants to play god. (This is like something out of science fiction; bad science fiction.) Has this clown thought about the profound implications of creating life forms, and especially of creating intelligent life forms? (If such a thing is possible.) I doubt it; and I doubt he's capable of it.

Isn't it interesting that the same people who deny that God could have created living organisms, are thinking of doing the same thing themselves. How does that work?
I guess God can't be God, but human beings can? God can't be creator, but man can?

Notes;
1. Origin-of-Life Researchers Caught Playing With Toys: Creation/Evolution Headlines 07/07/2009
2. 'It was “dreamed up by a group of international advisors and Bruce Damer, the founder of a research company that creates 3-D spacecraft and mission simulations for NASA and the space community.”
3. Jack in the box;
'Another theory as to the origin of the jack-in-the-box is that it comes from the 13th century English prelate Sir John Schorne, who is often pictured holding a boot with a devil in it. According to folklore, he once cast the devil into a boot to protect the village of North Marston in Buckinghamshire. This theory may explain why in French, a jack-in-the-box is called a "diable en boîte" (literally "boxed devil"). - wiki
- I'll let you make up your own comment.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Evolution as a plot device

In a blatant attempt to generate controversy, and thus drive droves of readers to this blog, I'm going to examine evolution as if it were a plot device.

Many exotic 'technologies' in sf exist only because the demands of narrative require them. Examples of this include faster than light (FTL) travel. Without this technology the universe of sf would be a dreary place indeed, and readers would quickly become bored. Who wants to go on a trip lasting centuries, just to get to a star with no habitable stars? Sf is supposed to be the genre where the impossible is possible after all.
- Other plot devices include; telepathy, the time machine; doorways through space; life in the future; human acting and appearing robots, aliens, transporter beams, universal translating machines...

- We can see the theory of evolution as one of these plot devices that the demands of a popular Sf requires. Without alien civilizations gushing up all over the universe, (like geyers in Yellowstone park) the universe would be a dreary place for readers. The fact evolution [M2M] is impossible doesn't rule it out from being used, anymore than it rules out FTL. The sf genre needs it. So this means that pop culture will continue to have alien life forms gushing up all over, as if it were a mere banality to have life emerge from non-life, as if it were a trivial fact of chemistry to have rocks turn into Einsteins.

- We can conclude from this that Evolution will be the ruling worldview in our society until the Sf genre runs out of gas and becomes unpopular. (If it ever does. I don't want to upset people by suggesting this is going to happen.) The entertainment industry is big business, and the industry lobby will see to it that Evolution is taught in government schools for the foreseeable future.

- I'm being facetious of course. It's not Sf that needs Evolution, but the worldview known as Materialism. If some form of creation is the correct explanation for the origin (source) of the various life forms on earth, we have to consider evolution as an Sf story... probably the greatest one of all time.

Notes;
1. What do you mean I can't be serious? Our professors do call religions stories don't they? And Evolution does function as a story doesn't it?
2. As usual, M2M = molecules to man evolution. (I've failed spectacularly in my attempt to have this accronym adopted.)

Do all questions have answers?

Have you ever wondered why your brain is so big? Is this a question that has an answer, or is it a meaningless bit of speculation?

Quotes and comments;

A. “Why are human brains so big?” asked Live Science. [i.e. relative to body size] Rachael Rettner reported on various answers.
Rettner evaluated three hypotheses about why early human ancestors developed large brains. She summarized ideas that revolve around climate change, the demands of ecology, and social competition. “But with several competing ideas, the issue remains a matter of debate.”
Can any of these theories be tested, to see which is stronger?' [1.]

- There's no way to know which of these theories is best, for the simple reason there's no way to know why the human brain is so big. People in our day have come to believe the claim (fantasy) that if you can ask a question you can answer it; that if there is an answer to every question. I don't believe this is the case at all; certainly one can't prove such a belief. We might ask why this should be so? We know that language is so flexible that we can easily use it to talk about nonsense.

e.g. I can tell you that 'the Hurkle is a happy beast' or that 'on the planet Lihrt, the Gwik are the dominant race' and so on; none of which has any connection to reality. This same process can be applied to asking questions. I can ask you, 'why is it that the Hurkle is a happy beast?' You might do some research on the Internet, and find 3 main theories. Can we test these theories to find out which one is best? Can we know the answer to our question? (I leave it to you to answer that for yourself.)

My point is that not all questions have answers; and that not all questions have answers that we can answer. The trouble is knowing what these questions are. I don't have a solution to this, but it's clear that questions that concern history are difficult to answer; this is especially the case for events no one witnessed. As a general rule we can say that the further we go back in history the more difficult it will be to answer questions. I also believe that there are no certain answers for things that were unobserved.

- Let's address the particular question at hand. Why is the human brain so large? The biblical answer is that since God created man; the size of man's brain goes back to that original act of creation. (Given what we know about entropy over time, and the process of mutation, we can assume that the brain is not bigger than it originally was, and that it's likely to be smaller now than it originally was.) If we reject the Genesis account (if we claim that it's not historical, or that historical accounts aren't relevant) we are left in the position of being unable to answer the question. i.e. since the event happened so long ago, and since no one observed it, there is no way to know (with certainty) what happened. This then is an example of a question that has no answer that's available to us by autonomous means.

- In my opinion, there's a great many similar unanswerable questions in the whole field of evolutionary biology. (I sometimes wonder if such questions don't dominate what's popularly known as Darwinism.)

- So how do we know if a question has an answer? How are we to have any confidence that a question might have an answer? Maybe there's a hint in the etymology of the word real. If we trace the word back it has roots in terms like; actual, matter, thing, etc. We might then say that the real (or reality) is roughly equated to physical things one can observe. So then if our question concerns a physical object we can observe we have at least some reason to believe it can be answered. The further a question strays from one that concerns a description of a physical object that exists in the present and can be observed, the less confidence we have that it has an answer.

All questions aren't equal. We should ask ourselves whether (in each case) there's any reason to believe a question makes sense; whether or not it can have an answer; whether or not we can (autonomously) find an answer to it. It's my contention that many of the questions people are working on have no answer. There are many reasons for this, but the most important is likely related to funding. If you offer money to people for trying to answer your question you can be sure you'll get some suggested answers... no matter how meaningless the question, no matter if it can be answered or not.

Notes;
1. The Early Man Gets the Big Brain: Creation/Evolution Headlines 07/13/2009
- New Scientist [July/13/2009]

Monday, January 18, 2010

Evolution as game theory

The ever increasing use of game theory in biological (evolutionary) speculation is a pet peeve of mine. In this post I'll revisit the topic.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'A recent example of applying [evolution] to everything was seen on Science Daily and PhysOrg last week. Some psychologists are telling us that evolution taught us to take turns. “It’s not just good manners to wait your turn -- it’s actually down to evolution, according to new research by University of Leicester psychologists.” [1.]

- And so 'manners' are replaced by some notion of instincts, or (and it's more or less the same) by some kind of 'hard-wired' response... developed in a mindless process over aeons of time. We see in this example, mor evidence that the campaign in academia, to achieve the 'abolition of man' continues on; spreading to every part of our lives and thought.

B. 'The psychologists looked into game theory for answers. They created selfish digital organisms in their computer.' [1.]

- Over and over I read examples like this; where the source of ideas about evolution, is game theory. (I consider this a joke.) For starters; there is no such thing as game theory. When these (or other) authors speak of game theory, they mean one or more particular ideas or notions within the set of ideas and stratagems known (collectively) as game theory. In other words; there is not one entity called game theory, but there are many game theories, many versions of game theory. To say that idea x came from game theory is to have said nothing at all.

On top of all this I consider the validity of game theory to be close (very close) to nil. I don't think it can be proved that it has any meaningful or knowable connection to reality. It's a sad state of intellectual affairs when the 'engine' for computer games is seen to be a proof of some postulate in evolutionary theory, or a proper tool in the study of biology.

- What most evolutionists don't like to admit (publicly) is that you can prove Anything with some version of game theory.
- If the authors are correct I guess we'll have to say that the construct called game theory isn't 'down to' anyone either, but that it's just another product of mindless evolution. (This would also be true of my criticisms of game theory.)

C. 'Colman said that their dumb, robotic digital organisms started out purely selfish but ended up taking turns. “Our findings confirm that cooperation does not always require benevolence or deliberate planning.''

- Findings! She calls the 'results' of this computer game, findings. I consider this to be a joke. [i.e. They've created what they claim to have found; and then they've spun an empty story around the supposed finding.] You might as well talk about the results of playing 'Myst' findings. There is no proof this has any connection to the real world of living organisms; or that we can know what conclusions to draw from these games. (People are apparently confusing computer games with the real world.) We need some people to take a critical look at the philosophical basis for this kind of endeavor; to see if there's any validity to this kind of thing.

- Games are supposed to be entertaining; they're not supposed to tell you truths about the real world, especially not truths that concern living organisms.

Notes;
1. Evolution’s Guiding Hand Is Far From Obvious; Creation/Evolution Headlines 7/17/2009
2. Game theory;
'A mathematical theory that deals with action in a conflict situation as if it were a game in which each player seeks to maximise his opponent's losses. '
- game theory was developed initially as a way of dealing with human issues, focusing on things like economics. It was later applied to the animal world. I see this as myth making; treating animals and humans in the same way... really, as if they were the same; as if mind doesn't matter, as if the uniqueness of man doesn't matter. It's another example (so prevalent in our day) of anthropomorphism. (I'm not sure how many people realize it, but evolutionary theory is inherently pantheistic.)

- 'Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences, most notably in economics, as well as in biology, engineering, political science, international relations, computer science, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others.' - Wiki
- the use of game theory in biology depends heavily on using the word 'choice' in radically different ways. (i.e. equivocation) The 'choice' (which is no choice) of animals and the choice of humans are conflated; treated as the same thing.

3. I realize Myst is probably a thing of the past.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Science fiction as evidence against Materialism

I've been reading 'The history of science fiction' by Adam Roberts, and thought I'd offer a brief comment on how the popularity of Sf can be seen as evidence against Materialism

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Artists of the sublime, or of ‘sense of wonder’, dilate on the insignificance of the ‘little dark star’ on which we live when compared to the immensity of the universe; Douglas Adams’ twentieth-century conception of the ‘total perspective vortex’, in which a machine compels individual minds to understand exactly how small they are in comparison to everything, thereby destroying them, is a comic version of this same understanding: comic because the reality underpinning the notion is indeed so unsettling, so appalling, that we prefer not to contemplate it.' [1.]

- What Evolutionists never tell us is why man-the-evolved-animal should care about the vastness of space, or why it should have any effect on him. They just ignore this problem entirely. It seems clear to me that if man were the creature they claim he is, that he wouldn't (couldn't) give a hoot; that he would be incapable of caring. I find it frustrating that evolutionists fail to address these issues. On the one hand they insist man is just an evolved animal, but then having established this they immediately forget it. Apparently nothing will cause them to doubt this belief.
So, we need to ask, where does this fascination with the vastness of space come from in Darwinian terms? I see no way to account for it.

- Why do so many writers in this field go on and on about physical size, and how man is so small when measure against planetary bodies? This makes no sense to me; and I don't see how it can make any sense within the Evolutionary model. Why should the size of space be unsettling? why should it be appalling? If man is just an animal this makes no sense. Roberts is arguing like a theist here; forgetting that he's just a Darwinian ape.

- I see the awe men feel in regard to the vastness of space as evidence the materialist and evolutionary model of origins is false. I can't see that this makes any sense if man is just one more survival grubbing animal. I think that it's only because man is not who the materialists say he is, that this response to the heavens makes sense. i.e. that it's only because man is made in the image of God that we can make sense of his awe; make sense of the fact the cosmos unsettles and appalls him.

Notes;
1. The history of science fiction - Adam Roberts/40
- I recommend the book; provisionally, as I'm not yet half way. (He claims Sf came into existence about the time of the Protestant Reformation, and was intimately connected with it. You'll have to read that section yourself as it's too involved to get into here.)
2. We might ask whether it's feeling small in comparison to the universe that unsettles man, or whether it's feeling small in comparison to God?

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Darwin and the Pygmy planet

Continuing with our look at some classic Sf stories and how they shed light on the Origins debate, I want to take a look at the story 'Pygmy Planet' by Jack Williamson. [1932]

Summary; An eccentric scientist comes up with a radical way to test the theory of evolution. In a private laboratory he builds a miniature planet (about three feet in diameter) complete with life forms and intelligent life. He then shrinks himself down to size to investigate the planet in person. As you might expect, trouble soon ensues. A reporter is called to the scene, and interviews a distraught employee.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'His mind quickened at the idea, and he half forgot the weird mystery gathering about him. He stepped nearer the sphere. It was curiously like a miniature world. The irregular bluish areas would be seas; the green and the brown spaces land. In some parts, the surface appeared mistily obscured--perhaps, by masses of cloud.
"A toy world!" he cried. "A laboratory planet! What an experiment. A pygmy planet, spinning in the laboratory like a world in the gulf of space!"

- Sad to say, but to a certain kind of scientist our planet Is an experiment; i.e. they treat it as a toy, or as some model they built in the laboratory.

- When men treat men like experiments they reduce them to pygmy size... and well beyond that. To treat man or society, as an experiment is to murder man, to reduce him to an object; to 'unman' man. The desire to treat 'humanity' as an experiment betrays a wish to have comprehensive knowledge, the desire to have the kind of knowledge only god has. Man can only be an object of experimental science if he's first reduced; reduced from a human being made in the image of god, to a little bit of matter. Science can never deal with the whole man, but merely with man as matter, man as material object.

B. "You see that little planet? The monster came from that and carried the doctor back there. And I know it will soon be back for another victim--for sacrifice!"

- We might say that 'monsters' come from man made inventions... that it's the human imagination that is responsible for much of the evil in the world.

C. "Yes, it is a planet. The Pygmy Planet, Dr. Whiting called it. He said it was the great experiment of the century. You see, he was testing evolution. We began with the planet, young and hot, and watched it until it is
now almost as old as Mars. We watched the change and development of life upon it. And the rise and decay of a strange civilization. Until now its people are strange things, with human brains in mechanical bodies, worshiping a rusty machine like a god--"

- Apparently, due to its faster life cycle perhaps, the intelligent beings on the planet had evolved further than men from earth.

- Of course testing evolution is the one thing you can't do; but the pulp writers (thankfully) never paid any attention to what was impossible.
This is an evolutionist's fantasy come true. Williamson has even found a fictional way to manufacture time. In addition he's taken an observer back to the moment of origins, the emergence of life. (The evolution apologists of our time grew up on stories like this.)

- This is absolutely amazing! There's nothing like the pulps to give you popular culture in its naked audacity.

D. ''Every atom, you know, is a sort of solar system, with electrons revolving around a proton. And time passes far more swiftly for the tiny objects--probably because the electrons move faster in
their smaller orbits. That is what suggested to Dr. Whiting that he would be able to watch the entire life of
a planet, in the laboratory... on the Pygmy Planet, we have watched the life of a world--the whole panorama of evolution--"

- Dr. Whiting made the study of evolution truly scientific; something no one else has been able to do.

E. "It seems too wonderful!" Larry muttered. "Could Dr. Whiting actually decrease his size and become a dwarf?"
"No trick at all," Agnes assured him. "All you have to do is stand in the violet beam, to shrink. And move over
in the red one, when you want to grow. I have been several times with Dr. Whiting to the Pygmy Planet."

- No trick at all! I love it. (They travel to the planet in a miniature plane... and drop down through the atmosphere. No trick at all if you know how to do it.)

F. "You--you've actually done that?" he gasped. "It sounds like a fairy story!"

- The real fairy story is treating evolutionary speculation as if it were true science.

G. "What can we do?"
"I don't know," she said slowly. "I'm afraid one of the monsters will be back after a new victim. We could smash the apparatus, but it is too wonderful to be destroyed.''

- It was, and is a common theme that science must go ahead, no matter what dangers are involved. This is the quest for comprehensiveness of knowledge; i.e. man's quest for complete or total knowledge. This involves denying the Creator/creature distinction, with man imagining he can have the kind of knowledge God can. It's part of man's nature to seek knowledge, but it's immoral for man to seek total knowledge. In addition, knowledge should never be made a goal in itself, should never be allowed to reign supreme. Man shouldn't relegate other goals and ideals to the quest for knowledge. Man's first responsibility always is to live a godly life. He should pursue knowledge, but not at the expense of godliness.

H. "What was it that Agnes had said, of machine-monsters, of human brains in mechanical bodies?''

- You see what you can learn by a properly scientific study of evolution? Here we learn that natural selection can evolve intelligent creatures with different body plans than man.... even radically different ones. We sure didn't know this before professor Whiting. We also learn that life can evolve in places other than earth. We learn that intelligence is just a material phenomenon. We learn that the e. theory is true; yes, darwin may have suggested it (I suppose he deserves a modicum of credit) but Whiting proved it; a far harder thing to do.

I. "And when this old hammer kept pounding on through the ages, using volcanic steam, I guess they got to considering it alive. They began to regard it as a sort of god. And when they got the idea of giving it sacrifices,
it was natural enough to place the victims under the hammer."

- And we see by this observation that Whiting proved that gods are the product of evolution. We might be led to believe by this that gods are an almost inevitable product of the evolutionary process. (Of course it would be nice to build more miniature planets to better test this hypothesis.)
- That Agnes can understand the metal beings shows that Evolution is a quite rational process; not beyond understanding as the creationists claim.

J. - 'When the hammer slowly lifted, only a red smear was left..."

- And so Dr. Whiting was a true martyr to evolutionary science. He gave his life to show the world Darwin was right. I don't know about you, but it kind of chokes me up.

K. "Wait a minute," she objected, slipping quickly from his arms. "What are we going to do about the Pygmy Planet? Those monsters might come again, even if you did wreck their god. And Dr. Whiting, poor fellow - But we mustn't let those monsters come back!"

Larry doubled up a brown fist and drove it with all his strength against the little globe that spun so steadily between the twin, upright cylinders of crimson and of violet flame. His hand went deep into it. And it swung from its position, hung unsteadily a moment, and then crashed to the laboratory floor. It was crushed like a ball of soft brown mud. It spattered.

"Now I guess they won't come back," Agnes said. "A pity to spoil all Dr. Whiting's work, though."
Larry was standing motionless, holding up his fist and looking at it oddly. "I smashed a planet! Think of it. I smashed a planet!"

- Williamson was known as the planet smasher I think.
- He smashed Darwin's planet! Good grief, he must have been one of those evil creationists... trying to destroy evidence of evolution. [2.]

- Just think of all that evidence for evolution that was lost. The best argument the creationists have is the origin of life one, and here Whiting had proven the critique false... but sadly the information was lost. However, we can take heart in knowing that naturalistic evolution is possible; that we don't even need a God to throw out a few seeds.

- Whiting proved that religion always has negative consequences, as the machine people of the Darwin planet (sorry, pygmy planet) sacrificed other races, and even humans (like you and me!) to their god.

Summary; 4/5 [mainly for imagination, and for the fun]
- So; what's this got to do with the subject of origins? I don't want to read too much into this story but I think see an indication here of how people have made the mistake of thinking of the theory of evolution as if it were science. They've made the mistake of assuming M2M evolution is something you can test in a lab or observe in the field. Origins on the other hand is a subject that has to be looked at in another manner altogether. Since it's something that happened in the distant past it requires a unique methodology when it comes to trying to ascertain what happened.
- M. Johnson [frfarer - at- Gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Pygmy planet - Jack Williamson [available online at Manybooks.net]
2. Didn't Robert Sawyer, in his novel Calculating God, have some creationist characters go around destroying evidence for evolution? It's possible they were related to our character Larry.
3. The god of the metal men was a machine of some kind.
4. On a more serious note, many people in our day are quite willing to turn our own planet into a laboratory experiment. (Our socio-political elite like to refer to Canada as an experiment. The globalists push continually for a one world government, thus offering us all up for a planetary experiment.
- What was Communism but an almost planet sized experiment? Unfortunately it wasn't the first, and I'm afraid it won't be the last.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Devolution

One of the key questions of our day is whether what we see going on in the world is a matter of evolution or devolution. Has the mass of biological organisms been undergoing a process of advance, or a process of decline?

I want discuss this topic by looking at a science fiction story (by Edmond Hamilton) called Devolution. It gives us (perhaps unintentionally) a mythical account of what could be called biblical evolution. I hope you'll read the story before you read my comments on it. (It's the wildest nine pages I think I've ever read; a great deal of fun, if nothing else.) [1.]

Story summary;
In his story we see a 'creation myth' where perfect beings, slowly over time, devolve in lesser beings. (Less in ability and less in moral uprightness.) Whether Hamilton was consciously thinking in terms of Genesis, I don't know. The 'descent' in his story (which happens to alien colonists to a pre-biotic earth) has a physical cause; namely mutations caused by radioactivity emanating from below the surface of the planet. (It's interesting that this physical cause leads to moral effects as well as physical.)

Quotes and comments;

A. The word evolution has an interesting etymology.
Evolution;
1640s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from L. evolutionem "unrolling of a book," noun of action from evolvere (see evolve). [I'll be using this imagery later.]

B. Devolution is a rarity in Sf in that it presents the idea of evolution in a negative light. (The only other example I've come across was a story by Larry Niven, whose title I can't remember.) The story came out in 1931, and forms an odd pairing with another story by Hamilton called 'The man who evolved'. Devolution is a horror story, where evolution isn't seen as a positive thing but as a nightmare. [see below]

C. Hamilton begins his story with quite a long lecture that outlines the basic theory of evolution as it was known at that time. (Sf writers and editors weren't about to let any 'bible belters' opt out of an education in Darwinism.) This discussion is notable for its scepticism as regards the origin of life.

D. "It's been suggested that they rose spontaneously from the chemicals of earth, yet this is disproved by the fact that no such things rise spontaneously now from inert matter. Their origin is still a complete mystery. But, however they came into existence on earth, they were the first of life, our distant ancestors."

E. I won't bother to quote from the whole story, but I'll give you one more example.

"We humans aren't the product of downward devolution, we're the product of ages of upward evolution! We must be, I tell you! Why, we wouldn't want to live, I wouldn't want to live, if that other tale was true."
- This is a comment made by the lead character, late in the story. I think it does a good job of evoking how strongly some people feel about the subject of Origins.

Evolution or Devolution?
- It's perhaps ironic, but evolution might be a good term for what we see in the years after the creation week. i.e. we see an 'unrolling' of what was already written; in that the history of change and variation that has taken place within the created kinds (of Genesis) was already 'written' or predestined within the original genetic code. In the years since the creation week, we have seen an 'unrolling' of a hidden scroll. (I don't mean by this that every variation we've seen in that time was written out in that 'scroll' but only that its potential was already there.)

- The variations we've seen (e.g. different sizes, and colors, etc. of dogs) were potentially hidden within the original code. When it comes to 'speciation' we only see what is possible; and given the nature of the original code, not everything (by a long shot) Is possible. The six thousand (or so) years since creation have seen an 'evolution' then of the original genetic codes that were 'imprinted' within the original kinds.

- This process of evolution' has come to be known by the unpleasant sounding word/term devolution. This signifies a process of degeneration and decline. [2.] The current meaning assigned to evolution is a progress upward. The popular definition of evolution in our time (of 'progress' upward) is thus the opposite of what the biblical meaning of evolution is, or might be. (Few creationists speak about devolution, or about evolution in the sense I've briefly outlined.) We might simplify the differences and say the biblical evolution is progress downward (i.e. decline and loss of function) while the non-biblical or materialist notion of evolution (that's current) is one of progress upward (i.e. advance and the gaining of function).

- So; do biblical creationists believe in evolution? In a word, yes. Since this will be confusing it might be better to say they believe in devolution. The trouble with this term is that I can't see it taking hold. This is the model of Origins that I think comes closest to the reality of our situation. (The dating factor is problematic.) In other words, I tend to think that there was a perfect creation, and that there has been a decline from the position ever since. That this is an unpopular idea I'm well aware.
- M. Johnson/1/12/2010

Notes;
1. Devolution - Edmond Hamilton; published 1931 [Available online]
2. Devolution; n.
A. A passing down or descent through successive stages of time or a process. 2. Transference, as of rights or qualities, to a successor. 3. Delegation of authority or duties to a subordinate or substitute. 4. A transfer of powers from a central government to local units. 5. Biology Degeneration. (AH Dictionary)
B. 'A continuing process of degeneration or breaking down, in contrast to evolution.' - Biology-online.org
C. same as degeneration; sense 3
'biology loss of function: the gradual loss of the biological function, specialization, or adaptation of a part of the body over many generations.' - Encarta
D. 'the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality [syn: degeneration] [ant: development] - Wordnet
3. Micro-evolution. When I say creationists believe in evolution, I guess I should make it clear that what they believe in is what's called micro-evolution. (That this doesn't hold for everyone goes almost without saying.)

Monday, January 11, 2010

Biology in the Information age; an informed approach to Origins

I've been reading 'The signature in the cell' and want to offer a couple comments on the subject of information.

Quotes and comments;

A. "What evolutionists need to do (and what Darwin failed to even attempt) is to account for the existence of information; not the origin of species or the origin of 'life' but the origin of specified complexity. Nothing less than this will do." [1.]

- No one talked of information in Darwin's day. How then could he have formulated a theory of biology that could have been accurate? i.e. how can you fail to recognize the most vital element in a subject and still be right about it? still understand it correctly? I don't see how you can. Darwin formulated his ideas on the origin of life, the origin of species and the origin of man, on a foundation of utter ignorance. (An analogy might be basing your ideas of cosmology without knowledge of stars or galaxies... or without the aid of telescopes.) He missed the major point, the crucial point. (Can you understand the solar system without the theory of gravity? Can you understand the sun without the idea of fusion?)

- Materialists can't explain information for the basic reason information requires intelligence, intentionality and design. (You might as well ask a planet to come up with a theory of gravity.) People don't seem to understand that information is in a separate category from matter. That these are utterly separate entities has yet to dawn on people. (I'm sure that it will do so shortly; I see it as well nigh inevitable.) The 'information age' is the next great stage in intellectual thought; the next major development in scientific thinking.

- It takes information to create living forms out of matter; and matter in itself doesn't contain information. Not containing information, matter has no way to create living organisms. We might recall here that Aristotle spoke of animals as 'informed' matter; and thus was closer to the truth than Charles Darwin and the Victorian evolutionists. He developed this idea out of Plato's ideas of the forms. (It strikes me that the idea of the Forms was a secularized version of the creation account we have in Genesis.)

- Matter and information are as different as matter and language. (You can't get information from matter any more than you can get a text by throwing a bunch of rocks up into the air, and having them land in a readable formation.) The concept of information demands that the old materialism be tossed out and replaced with a new way of looking at things. Materialism (as a philosophy) is able to handle such things as planetary motion, but it can't cope with information and coding. (Isn't it a mistake to think one 'concept' will be sufficient to explain all things? Isn't this the mistake of scientism?)

B. Meyer [p.86] wants to define information as a sequence of characters (e.g. letters) that produces a specific effect.

- With all these chicken and the egg questions (i.e. which was first) we need to ask if instead it was neither. If we can't figure out which came first we need to wonder whether either came first. e.g. proteins are needed to make code, but code is needed to make proteins. Q. which was first? A. neither. They both arrived on the scene at the same time, via Intelligent design and creation. [discussion on p.134]

- While we know that persons can produce code, we know of no 'law' that can produce code, and we know of no of no material action that can produce code. If we want to base our idea of origins on something we do know (and not on baseless speculation) we have to opt for an intelligent and personal source for information.

B. 'Also according to a frequently quoted statement by the American mathematician Norbert Wiener (1894 – 1964) information cannot be a physical entity [W5]: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.” [2.]

- The ever present problem facing the materialist is 'where did all this specified information come from?' It's not floating around in space after all. It's not hiding in gases or in rocks. It's not blowing in the wind. (I've not seen any attempt at an answer that I found even possible.) This problem is downplayed by Materialists for the reason they have no answer for it. It stumps them, as it stumps everyone. i.e. there is no answer to this problem to be found within the closed universe of matter in motion.

- You see lots of attempts to come up with a source of specified information, but we need to be clear as to what's going on. For the most part people aren't trying to find answers to the problem as such, but are trying instead to find answers within the narrow framework of the materialist model. If they were really looking for answers, if that was their number one concern, they would abandon the search within the materialist model as being a hopeless enterprise. (We need to realize that most scientists are being paid to look for answers solely in terms of the materialist model. This is their work program; this is the agenda they are working within. This being the case, they don't look for answers that might exist outside this framework. We might say they're doing the best they can in an impossible situation.)
- M. Johnson 1/11/2010

Notes;
1. Signature in the Cell - Stephen Meyer/85
2. In the Beginning was Information - Werner Gitt/46 [available free online]
3. Information; from inform
Early 14c., "to train or instruct in some specific subject," from L. informare "to shape, form, train, instruct, educate," from in- "into" + forma "form." Sense of "report facts or news" first recorded late 14c. [that's close to what biological information does... interesting]
1. noun Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. noun Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. noun A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. Processed, stored, or transmitted data. [American Heritage]
- This leaves us with the problem of what data is :=)
Webster's 1913;
1. The act of informing, or communicating knowledge or intelligence.
- there seems to be a vital connection between information and intelligence (ie. traditionally)
2. News, advice, or knowledge, communicated by others or obtained by personal study and investigation; intelligence; knowledge derived from reading, observation, or instruction.
Century;
1. Communication of form or element; infusion, as of an animating or actuating principle.
2. Knowledge communicated or received
- Matter doesn't know anything, and can't communicate any knowledge therefore. (It can receive information, but has none inherently.)
10. In metaphysics, the imparting of form to matter.
Wordnet
2. knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
- as matter is incapable of learning anything it can acquire no information.
3. a message received and understood
- Mere matter is incapable of understanding any message. Only genetic code makes it possible for a body to understand.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Creation and the Incarnation

In this post I want to briefly look at the doctrine of miracles, as they might be related to the subject of Creation. This will be more of a bible study than an essay.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation.... Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this or results from this.' [1.]

- We could go back to the beginning of Genesis, and trace the miracles in the Bible to the end, to see how they might relate to the Incarnation. (i.e. God becoming man)

- I would think that the creation is the greatest pre-incarnation miracle. Here we see a sort of first picture of the Incarnation. We see the ideas and thoughts (wisdom) of God being 'incarnated' (as it were) in matter. We see God 'imprinting' various forms into basic matter. [Later we will see the incarnation not only of God's thoughts, but of God's very being, as one member of the Trinity will become incarnate.]

- The Incarnation means [literally, plainly] the word made flesh.

- We might call this creation the life miracles. Should the creation of the world be called a miracle? I agree with those who think so. [We'll later be told, in the gospel of John, that the Son is the creator of all things.]

- In early Genesis we see the creation of intelligent beings. We might call this the intelligence miracle.

- We see God communicating with our first parents. We take communication and language so much for granted that we don't see them for the wonders they are. We might call this the miracle of communication. [Jesus will consummate these miracles of communication with what he tells the people of his day.]

- We're told of Enoch, that God took him up; if this interpreted plainly we might call this a miracle of transcendence. (I'm not sure.) [We'll later see prophets 'translated' to the heavenly realm; as well as the 'going away' of Christ.]

- We have the miracle of Noah knowing the flood will happen. We can call this the miracle of prophecy. [We'll see the development of this in due time, with prophecies of the messiah, and then prophecies By the messiah.]

- Should we consider the Flood a miracle? I don't know. If it's seen this way it might be called a miracle of judgment. [Later we'll be told that Christ has come to judge Israel, and that one day he will come to judge the world.]

- We see the miracle of Babel, how God confused the nations, and wrecked their plan at replacing God's covenant with a totalitarian government. We can see this as a miracle of governance. [We'll later see how Jesus rejects the idea of political domination; how Christ is the be the focus of the nations, not elitist power seen in the State.]

- We see the miracle of God's intervention in the story of Abraham and Isaac. In this well known, and well debated story, God (as it were) saves Isaac by providing a ram for the sacrifice. [Later we will see how He will save His people by providing His Son as a sacrifice.]

- One could go on. (I think it would be a worthy paper to write; at any rate it makes a good study.)

- I'll just mention one more miracle. The famous axe story has long been a favorite of skeptics. As you recall, through the word of the prophet, an axe head that had been lost in a stream, floats up to the surface and is recovered. This has been rejected by many people as impossible. It seems to me that this could be the very message the incident is trying to teach. (i.e. with God all things are possible.) We might call this a miracle of (doing) the impossible. [Later we will see in the incarnation the accomplishment of what might have been seen as an utterly impossible thing. i.e. of Spirit becoming incarnate in mere matter. We might say that earlier incidents of 'impossible' things happening paved the way for this greater miracle.]

- Summary; the Incarnation and the Creation work to support each other. i.e. if the creation is true, the Incarnation is possible; if the Incarnation (of Jesus) is true, the creation is certainly possible. As Lewis says, miracles aren't just some 'add-on' to Christianity, but rather lie at the heart of it. The message is simply that if it weren't for miracles nothing that we see around us would exist.

Notes;
1. Miracles; C. S. Lewis/173
- a wonderful book.
2. C. S. Lewis early defines miracle as, 'an interference with nature by a supernatural power. [p.5] I don't think there's much doubt there was an intelligent agent behind the creation, and I feel that the God of the bible is the best candidate to be that creator. [I don't think there's any way that matter could so transcend itself as to provide the complex information required to do the job.]
3. If God the language he used to communicate with Adam, we can see this as another miracle.
4. 'Johann Peter Süßmilch established in 1756 that man could not have
invented language without having the necessary intelligence, and also that
intelligent thought in its turn depends on the previous existence of speech.
The only solution to this paradox is that God must have given human
beings language as a gift. - Werner Gitt/In the beginning was information/213
- I highly recommend the appendix on language in the above book.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Evolution and popular culture

In the years between the two world wars people didn't have a clue how dominant evolutionary thinking would one day become; but if they'd paid serious attention to the Sf magazines they might have.
In this post I want to take a look at one of the most popular stories of that period. The 'Man who evolved' was written by Edmond Hamilton and published in 1931.

Quotes and comments;

Synopsis; an experiment is conducted that purports to show how man will evolve in the next two hundred million years or so. One man is sent forward in time (as it were) while two others control the machinery and take notes.

A. "Do you two have any knowledge at all of evolution?" he asked.
"I know that it's a fighting word in some states," I answered, "and that when you say it you've got to smile, damn you." [1.]

- I take it this is a reference to the Scopes trial, which took place in 1926 in Tennessee.

B. He smiled himself. "I suppose you're aware of the fact, however, that all life on this earth began as simple uni-cellular protoplasm, and by successive evolutionary mutations or changes developed into its present forms and is still slowly developing?"

- i.e. you're an idiot if you don't know this, or if you deny it.
- The idea at this time ('31) seems to have been that evolution was still going on.

C. "We know that much—just because we're not biologists you needn't think we're totally ignorant of biology," Button said.
"Shut up. Dutton," I warned. "What's evolution got to do with your work up here, Pollard?"
"It is my work up here," Pollard answered.

- The idea seems to be that man can 'direct' evolution. (Really this amounts to taking over from evolution, and substituting an intelligent goal directed process for the goal-less process of mindless evolution.)

D. "Life began on this earth as simple protoplasm, a jelly-like mass from which developed small protoplasmic organisms. From these developed in turn sea-creatures, land-lizards, mammals, by successive mutations.
This infinitely slow evolutionary process has reached its highest point so far in the mammal man, and is still going on with the same slowness.

- At this time ideas about the cell were still very primitive. It's said here to be simple, and jelly-like. (Sounds like Haeckel)

- The idea is that mutations (copying mistakes) can create new (and more sophisticated) information.
- Evolution is seen as a slow, gradual process (ala Charles Darwin)
- Evolution has reached its highest point in man.... so far (i.e. the idea here is that something might come after man and surpass him in greatness)

E. "This much is certain biological knowledge, but two great questions concerning this process of evolution have remained hitherto unanswered. First, what is the cause of evolutionary change, the cause of these slow, steady mutations into higher forms? Second, what is the future course of man's evolution going to be, what will be the forms into which in the future man will evolve, and where will his evolution stop? Those two questions biology has so far been unable to answer."

- Evolution is an idea (theory) that here is presented (to its young readers) as certain. (We still hear this; i.e. evolution isn't a theory but a fact)
- this seems confusing as he said earlier change comes by mutation (is he asking what causes mutation?)
- what is the future course of man's evolution? i.e. man isn't seen as a finished product of creation, but as an evolving animal.
- where will evolution stop? (Where? who knows... but an evolutionist could say it will likely stop, as a biological process when man begins to interfere with the process.)

F. 'Pollard was silent a moment and then said quietly, "I have found the answer to one of those questions, and am going to find the answer to the other tonight."

- Here we have the image of the scientist as gnostic (i.e. able to know all things)

G. "I'm absolutely serious, Arthur. I have actually solved the first of those problems, have found the cause of evolution."
"What is it, then?" burst out of Dutton.
"What it has been thought by some biologists for years to be," Pollard answered. "The cosmic rays."
"The cosmic rays?" I echoed. "The vibrations from space that Millikan discovered?"
"Yes, the cosmic rays, the shortest wavelength and most highly penetrating of all vibratory forces. It has been known that they beat unceasingly upon the earth from outer space, cast forth by the huge generators of the stars, and it has also been known that they must have some great effect in one way or another upon the life of the earth." [2.]

H. "I have proved that they do have such an effect, and that that effect is what we call evolution! For it is the cosmic rays, beating upon every living organism on earth, that cause the profound changes in the structure of those organisms which we call mutations. Those changes are slow indeed, but it is due to them that through the ages life has been raised from the first protoplasm to man, and is still being raised higher."

- So the idea is that a destructive process can somehow (I guess we shouldn't ask how) create new information of a complex and specified kind. This is an extraordinary idea; but it's passed off as banal. How could such a thing possibly work? This would be like shooting a shotgun blast at a pigeon and hoping it will turn into an ape.) The great wonder is that no one seems to stop and question this wild idea; question how bombarding something with particle like bullets can somehow have a creative result. Didn't anyone wonder if the idea wasn't a tad crazy?

I. "Now suppose those concentrated cosmic rays, millions of times stronger than the ordinary cosmic rays that strike one spot on earth, fall upon a man standing inside the cube. What will be the result? It is the cosmic rays that cause evolutionary change, and you heard me say that they are still changing all life on earth, still changing man, but so slowly as to be unnoticeable. But what about the man under those terrifically intensified rays? He will be changed millions of times faster than ordinarily, will go forward in hours or minutes through the evolutionary mutations that all mankind will go forward through in eons to come!"

J. "I propose to try it on myself," said Pollard gravely, "and to find out for myself the evolutionary changes that await humankind."
"Why, it's insane!" Dutton exclaimed.
Pollard smiled. "The old cry," he commented. "Never an attempt. has been made yet to tamper with nature's laws, but that cry has been raised."

- Tampering with evolution is now seen as fully respectable. Every day e. apologists tell us that we 'must' take over the e. process. This isn't the wild cry of a mad scientist anymore, but the boring lesson from a school teacher.

K. 'His expression changed, his eyes brooding. "Can't you two sees what this may mean to humanity? As we are to the apes, so must the; men of the future be to us. If we could use this method of mine to take all mankind forward through millions of years of evolutionary development at one stride, wouldn't it be sane to do so?"

- What would be the point? Is it any more meaningful to live in the future than in the present?
- Evolution is presented here as progress (the Victorians almost equated the two). But what could the end of millions of years of human evolution be? (Is it progress to cease being human?)

L. 'My mind was whirling. "Good heavens, the whole thing is so crazy," I protested. "To accelerate the evolution of the human race? It seems somehow a thing forbidden."

M. "Now, I will stand inside the cube and you will turn on the rays and let them play upon me for fifteen minutes. Roughly, that should represent a period of some fifty million years of future evolutionary change. At the end of fifteen minutes you will turn the rays off and we will be able to observe what changes they have caused. We will then resume the process, going forward by fifteen-minute or rather fifty-million-year periods."

- Sf has always been full of devices (etc.) to speed things up. The ordinary time flow (as it were) is seen as boring.

N. "I'm afraid it is too late," he smiled. "If I backed out now I'd be ashamed to look in a mirror hereafter. And no explorer was ever more eager than I am to start down the path of man's future evolution!"

- Hidden away inside all the gushing talk about evolution is the idea there's something wrong with man as he is. (I don't mean morally, but physically.) It's hard to pinpoint this mania for e. change. Wouldn't it mean the death of man? And why would man look forward to the death of man? It seems a very odd desire for a human being to have.

O. 'Pollard stood inside the cube, staggering as though still dazed by the impact of the experience, but he was not the Pollard who had entered the chamber! He was transfigured, godlike! His body had literally expanded into a great figure of such physical power and beauty as we had not imagined could exist! He was many inches taller and broader, his skin a clear pink, every limb and muscle molded as though by some master sculptor.'

- Heh; I want one of these super duper, evolve in 15 mins. machines :=)
- We're not supposed to ask how a destructive process can lead to improvements. (Apparently bigger and stronger is always to be considered as progress. Why this should be so, we're not told.)
- Beauty is a result of a random and destructive process apparently.

P. 'The greatest change, though, was in his face. Pollard's homely, good-humored features were gone, replaced by a face whose perfectly-cut features held the stamp of immense intellectual power that shone almost overpoweringly from the dear dark eyes. It was not Pollard who stood before us, I told myself, but a being as far above us as the most advanced man of today is above the troglodyte!

- These fellows can detect intelligence just by looking at it apparently.
- Yes; man developed intelligence by being bombarded by particles from space... yes; it all makes sense now.

Q. "You see? It worked as I knew it would work! I'm fifty million years ahead of the rest of humanity in evolutionary development!"
- He's evolved 50 million years, but he still speaks English. (I think this disproves the idea we'll all be speaking Mandarin before long.)

R. 'When I shut off the mechanism at the end of the [next] appointed period, Dutton and I received a shock. For again Pollard had changed!
He was no longer the radiant, physically perfect figure of the first metamorphosis. His body instead seemed to have grown thin and shrivelled, the outlines of bones visible through its flesh. His body, indeed, seemed to have lost half its bulk and many inches of stature and breadth, but these were compensated for by the change in his head.
For the head supported by this weak body was an immense, bulging balloon that measured fully eighteen inches from brow to back!

- This is technically known as the 'egghead' stage of evolution.

S. "You say that because in this change you're getting away from all human emotions and sentiments!" I burst. "Pollard, do you realize what you're doing? You're changing out of human semblance!"
"I realize it perfectly," he snapped, "and I see nothing to be deplored in the fact. It means that in a hundred million years man will be developing in brain-capacity and will care nothing for the development of body. To you two crude beings, of what is to me the past,: this seems terrible; but to me it is desirable and natural. Turn on the rays again!"

- On a more serious note, we see here man's insatiable lust for power. (The Faust legend springs to mind; not to mention Satan himself.)

T. 'Pollard's great eyes surveyed us with cold menace. "You will turn on the rays," his thin voice ordered deliberately. "If you do not, it will be but the work of a moment for me to annihilate both of you and go on with this alone."
"You'd kill us?" I said dumfoundedly. "We two, two of your best friends?"
His narrow mouth seemed to sneer. "Friends? I am millions of years past such irrational emotions as friendship. The only emotion you awaken in me is a contempt for your crudity. Turn on the rays!"

- If you could 'transcend' the human stage where would you stop? This is the question the posthumanist crowd can't answer.

U. 'The change had continued, and Pollard—I could not call him that in my own mind—stood in the cube-chamber as a shape the sight of which stunned our minds.
He had become simply a great head! A huge hairless head fully a yard in diameter, supported on tiny legs, the arms having dwindled to mere hands that projected just below the head! The eyes were enormous, saucer-like, but the ears were mere pin-holes at either side of the head, the nose and mouth being similar holes below the eyes!

- You might wonder how such a being could survive.
- the lesson here is obvious; a little evolution is good, but too much can be a disaster. (Sort of like global warming.)

V. "Good God, Pollard, you've made yourself a monster!" The words burst from me without thought.
"I mean that with the colossal brain I have I will master without a struggle this man-swarming planet, and make it a huge laboratory in which to pursue the experiments that please me."

W. "So you two would try to kill me?" queried the head that had been Pollard. "Why, I could direct you without a word to kill yourselves and you'd do so in an instant! What chance has your puny will and brain against mine? And what chance will all the force of men have against me when a glance from me will make them puppets of my will?"

- Over and over in early sf you had the idea that greater intelligence would somehow create in man (etc.) the ability to do things by mere will. I'm not sure where this idea came from. It seems a crude desire to be God, and to do things by will only.

Y. 'Into our minds came a thought from the gray head-thing before us, a thought as clear as though spoken. "You have guessed it, for even my former head-body is disappearing, all atrophying except the brain. I am become a walking, seeing brain. As I am so all of your race will be in two hundred million years, gradually losing more and more of their atrophied bodies and developing more and more their great brains."

- How a brain can live without the other body organs I have no idea. (I guess I'm just not evolved enough.)

Z. 'The great gray brain that had been inside it was gone. There lay on the cube's floor instead of it a quite shapeless mass of clear, jelly-like matter. It was quite motionless save for a slight quivering. My shaking hand went forth to touch it, and then it was that I screamed, such a scream as all the tortures of hell's crudest fiends could not have wrung from a human throat.
The mass inside the cube was a mass of simple protoplasm! This then was the end of man's evolution-road, the highest form to which time would bring him, the last mutation of all! The road of man's evolution was a circular one, returning to its beginning!

- Since two hundred million years of evolutionary progress gets wiped out in a single step, we see that Darwin's idea that evolution must always progress in tiny steps has been disproved.

Ending;
'I remember the chill of dew-wet grass against my hands and face as the flames from Pollard's house soared higher. And I remember that as I saw Dutton's crazy laughter by that crimson light, I knew that he would laugh thus until he died.'

- Pollard dies, Dutton goes mad, and the lab goes up in flame. Thus the proof of evolution that we all so greatly desire was lost.

Summary; we can see in this (admittedly crude) story how the theory of evolution was presented as an exciting idea. Not only was it a certain truth, but it was something scientific that could be experimented with. This was just one of a great many stories where the truth of M2M evolution was just assumed. The veracity of evolutionary theory came to be accepted by being presented in this manner. Science fiction at this time was presented as cutting edge science, as the science of the future. Evolution was incorporated into the stories as a vital element of the whole mythos.
- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. The man who evolved - Edmond Hamilton
- the story can be found online at Manybooks.net
- the story has been included in several anthologies, notably in the one by Isaac Asimov, 'Before the Golden Age'
2. Cosmic rays;
'Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons, with nearly 10% being helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements, electrons (beta particles), or gamma ray photons.[1] The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. - Wiki