Abraham Kuyper on faith and science

I'm going to devote this post to a long quotation by Kuyper on the relationship of faith and science. It's taken from his lecture 'Calvinism and Science'.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Notice that I do not speak of a conflict between faith and science. Such a conflict does not exist. Every science in a certain degree starts from faith, and, on the contrary, faith, which does not lead to science, is mistaken faith or superstition, but real, genuine faith it is not. Every science presupposes faith in self, in our selfconsciousness; presupposes faith in the accurate working of our senses; presupposes faith in the correctness of the laws of thought; presupposes faith in something universal hidden behind the special phenomena; presupposes faith in life; and especially presupposes faith in the principles, from which we proceed ; which signifies that all these indispensable axioms, needed in a productive scientific investigation, do not come to us by proof, but are established in our judgment by our inner conception and given with our self-consciousness. [1.]

On the other hand every kind of faith has in itself an impulse to speak out. In order to do this it needs words, terms, expressions. These words must be the embodiment of thoughts.
Those thoughts must be connected reciprocally not only with themselves but also with our surroundings, with time and eternity, and as soon as faith thus beams forth in our consciousness, the need of
science and demonstration is born. Hence it follows that the conflict is not between faith and science, but between the assertion that the cosmos, as it exists today, is either in a normal or abnormal condition. If it is normal, then it moves by means of an eternal evolution from its potencies to its ideal. But if the cosmos in its present condition is abnormal, then a disturbance has taken place in the past, and only a regenerating power can warrant it the final attainment of its goal. This, and no other is the principal antithesis, which separates the thinking minds in the domain of Science into two opposite battle-arrays.

The Normalists refuse to reckon with other than natural data, do not rest until they have found an identical interpretation of all phenomena, and oppose with the utmost vigor, at every turn of the line, all attempts to break or to check the logical inferences of cause and effect. Therefore, they also honor faith in a formal sense but only as far as it remains in harmony with the general data of the human consciousness and this be considered as normal. Materially, however, they reject the very idea of creation, and can only accept evolution,—an evolution without a point of departure in the past, and eternally evolving itself in the future, until lost in the boundless infinite.

No species, not even the species Homo sapiens, originated as such, but within the circle of natural data developed out of lower and preceding forms of life. Especially no miracles, but instead of them the natural law, dominating in an inexorable manner. No sin, but evolution from a lower to a higher moral position.
If they tolerate the Holy Scriptures at all, they do it on condition that all those parts which cannot be logically explained as a human production be exscinded. A Christ, if necessary, but such a one as is the product of the human development of Israel. And in the same manner a God, or rather a Supreme Being, but after the manner of the Agnostics, concealed behind the visible Universe, or pantheistically hiding in all existing things, and conceived of as the ideal reflection of the human mind.

The Abnormalists, on the other hand, who do justice to relative evolution, but adhere to primordial creation over against an evolutioin infinitum, oppose the position of the Normalists with all their might; they maintain inexorably the conception of man as an independent species, because in him alone is reflected the image of
God ; they conceive of sin as the destruction of our original nature, and consequently as rebellion against God ; and for that reason they postulate and maintain the miraculous as the only means
to restore the abnormal; the miracle of regeneration; the miracle of the Scriptures; the miracle in the Christ, descending as God with His own life into ours ; and thus, owing to this regeneration
of the abnormal, they continue to find the ideal norm not in the natural but in the Triune God.

Not faith and science therefore, but two scientific systems or if you choose, two scientific elaborations, are opposed to each other, each having its own faith. Nor may it be said that it is here science
which opposes theology, for we have to do with two absolute forms of science, both of which claim the whole domain of human knowledge, and both of which have a suggestion about the supreme Being
of their own as the point of departure for their world-view.

Pantheism as well as Deism is a system about God, and without reserve the entire modern theology finds its home in the science of the Normalists. And finally, these two scientific systems of the
Normalists and the Abnormalists are not relative opponents, walking together half way, and, further on, peaceably suffering one another to choose different paths, but they are both in earnest, disputing
with one another the whole domain of life, and they cannot desist from the constant endeavor to pull down to the ground the entire edifice of their respective controverted assertions, all the
supports included, upon which their assertions rest. If they did not try this, they would thereby show on both sides that they did not honestly believe in their point of departure, that they were no
serious combatants, and that they did not understand the primordial demand of science, which of course claims unity of conception.

B. 'He, who subjectively looks upon his inner being and objectively upon the world around him as normal, cannot but speak as he does, cannot reach a different result, and would be insincere in his position
as a scientific man, if he were to represent things in a different light. And therefore from a moral point of view, not thinking for a moment of such a man's responsibility in the judgment of God, nothing can be said against his personal stand-point, provided that, thinking as he does, he shows the courage to voluntarily
leave the Christian church in all its denominations. [2.]

C. 'It [Calvinism] does not keep itself busy with useless apologetics; it does not turn the great battle into a skirmish about one of the outworks, but immediately goes back to human consciousness, from which every man of science has to proceed as his consciousness.
This consciousness, just on account of the abnormal character of things, is not the same in all. If the normal condition of things had not been broken, consciousness would emit the same sound from all ; but as a matter of fact, this is not the case. In the one the consciousness of sin is very powerful and strong, in the
other it is either feeble or entirely wanting. In the one the certainty of faith speaks with decision and clearness as a result of regeneration, the other does not even understand what it is. [3.]

- I find this a convincing bit of evidence that Materialism isn't a true picture of man or the universe. i.e. If man were but matter in motion how is it people think so very differently? If it's all chemical reactions (operating on strict cause and effect) why doesn't everyone think the same? If all is matter in motion why is we have creationists and materialists? And if this is all we are, why does anyone care about the Origins debate?

Notes;
1. Lectures on Calvinism; lecture #4 Calvinism and science/p. 131-133
- the book is available for free online at Reformedpublishingproject.com
2. ibid p. 136
3. ibid
4. I should in passing that I don't like the term Calvinism. (Kuyper begins by admitting much the same, but uses the term for convenience sake.)

The Victorians, the Bible and creation

The ideas and methods of Charles Darwin are intimately connected with the theological currents of the time he lived in. The theology comes first, and the theories on biology later.

Quotes and comments;

A. "The more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these … I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation." - Charles Darwin [1.]

- Darwin kept saying the world was not what we would expect if God really had created all the creatures. There can be little doubt he brought this same method of doubt to the Bible. It wasn't what he expected, wasn't what he thought it should be... and so he rejected it. He's often painted as a humble man, when he was nothing of the sort. The man overflowed with arrogance; toward both the Creator and the created world.

(I don't have Darwin's confidence, and don't think we can know (a priori) what to expect from God's word, or from the natural world. If we critique God and creation with our own expectations we're doomed to throw out the truth for the sake of delusions.)

The materialists and deists of Darwin's era attacked the bible with the same diligence and fervor they attacked all ideas of creation. They were out not to discover truth but to destroy truth. The mocked and ridiculed, and held these truths up to whimsical standards and zealous complaint. As they looked for evils in the natural world, so they combed the bible to find evils there. They made collections of their discoveries, and claimed these had disproved the idea of a good god and a good creation... claimed they had disproved the bible and disproved creation.

They employed certain methods on the 'data' in both cases. To deny the flood they used a method of Uniformitariansim; the method itself made the flood (and biblical geology) impossible. With the bible they used the method of naturalism; thus making all miracles impossible. In neither case did they discover that biblical geology was wrong, or that the miracles didn't happen... they merely defined them out of existence. (And called it science.)

In my opinion, Darwinism is about as scientific as naturalism or higher criticism. It's basically higher criticism applied to the world of living forms. It uses similar methods, and has a similar spirit. It holds God up to human standards. (e.g. it doesn't allow the supernatural.... at least in the sense of not allowing any direct influence of God upon the world.) And so, just as the bible wasn't written by the hand of God, neither were the animals created by the hand of God. The bible rather was the cobbled together words of mystics, politicians and liars; no more true than any London newspaper. And so the animals in the world were not created by god but had been fashioned together by random chance events; each animal being a cobbled collection of spare parts and available bits and bobs.

Both the bible and the average animal were full of obvious mistakes and failures. Both the bible and the natural world were full of evil things; parasites and demons, waste and genocide, harsh and brutal laws, prodigies and visions. Both the bible and the natural world were held up to perfectionist standards; standards created by sanctimonious, Victorians who imagined they sat aloft the pinnacle of the human race and human progress. They looked down on Pygmies and Australians, and they looked down on God. They looked down on odd and maladapted nature, and they looked down on the bible. They knew the way things should be if there had been a God, and they saw no sign of his existence; not in the world, and not in the bible.

With this background it can be seen why Charles Darwin was such a great success. He rode the spirit of the times as if it were lodged in his own stable.

Notes;
1. 'Concerning ‘the miracles with which Christianity is supported’, he wrote,
‘[T]he more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these … I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.’ [The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, (with original omissions restored, edited with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow), Collins, London, ‘Religious Belief’, pp. 85–96, 1958.]
- Taken from article at creation.com 'Darwin’s arguments against God' by Russell Grigg
2. ‘I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.’ - Charles Darwin [see above]
- In other words, the Bible and Christianity couldn't be true, because he didn't like them; didn't like what they said.
3. People interested in further study on this subject might read 'Darwin's God' and 'Darwin's Proof' by Cornelius Hunter. (I especially recommend the first.)

The new evidence for god; does it work?

Is the new evidence of fine tuning a good argument for the existence of God? A brief look.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Over the past fifty years scientists have uncovered a series of amazing facts which show that the creation is an extremely unlikely place, fine-tuned in specific ways that make human life possible. It shows all the signs that it has been purposefully designed as a place for us to live.' [1.]

- Psalm 104 states of God's works ''in wisdom you made them all." To me this refutes the ideas of certain christian 'liberals' that all god did was to fine tune the universe. (Christian apologist and writer Peter Williams is a believer in the fine tuning arguement, but insists he's not a creationist.) A new website features online videos that set out the fine tuning argument as new evidence for god. (You might know this argument in the form given by people like John Polkinghorne.)

- The bible states that god's works (the wonders we see) were made in wisdom. (e.g. It says of the sea "and the Leviathan which you formed to frolic there." Psalm 104) This says to me that God did a lot more than fine tune the Big Bang; that he took an active part in creating the original life forms on this planet. In my opinion it takes a lot of 'maneuvering' to see Psalm 104 (etc.) as a reference to fine tuning the Big Bang. Apologists and scientists like this have swallowed the materialist scenario (BB to man) hook, line and sinker. (Especially the sinker.)

There's only one problem with this idea - it's impossible. The idea a mere explosion of 'matter' (singularity, whatever) can result some time later in human beings seems absurd. The laws of physics aren't creative; they act in a rigid cause and effect manner. (They can't produce genetic code for one thing.)

This 'new evidence' for God either denies or ignores the plain message of the Bible on the one hand, and adopts a materialist explanation that's impossible on the other hand. I consider it about as useful as a wet firecracker.

Mike Johnson [frfarer - at- gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Note taken from the website.
- You can check out the argument/s for yourself at God: the new evidence
2. From a short book review (on the God: new evidence website)
'If you want to read more about cosmic fine-tuning, one of the best short books is ‘Just Six Numbers: the deep forces that shape the universe,’ by Martin Rees.
Rees discusses the six numbers of the title that contribute to a life-supporting universe: the ratio of the strength of electrical forces to the force of gravity; the strength with which atomic nuclei bind together; the density of the universe; the cosmological repulsion constant; the amount of unevenness in the big bang; and the number of spatial dimensions. He argues that if any of these numbers were much different from what they actually are, life would be impossible.'
- The idea if you have these 'numbers' you will automatically have a universe full of living organisms and intelligent beings is a logical fallacy. i.e. because 'life' needs these things doesn't mean that if you have these factors in place you will have living organisms. (e.g. the fact humans need water to survive doesn't mean that if you have water on a planet you'll have human beings.) MJ
3. In case I didn't make myself clear, my criticism of the argument is not that the fine tuning of various constants isn't evidence of creation, but that the living forms we see on earth (including man) did not, and cannot have evolved via purely 'naturalistic' mechanisms. My argument is that God did a lot more than simply fine tune the Big Bang and then step aside and watch the show.
4. So what do we see here? Do we see a case of fine tuning the universe, or do we see a case of fine tuning the argument for Liberalism?

Darwinism and the pathetic fallacy

I've been talking recently about evolutionary theory and how it depends on various reifications, and logical fallacies. Here's a very brief example of the kind of thing I've been talking about.

Quotes and comments;

A. "A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evolution..." [1.]

- While this might be called a pathetic bit of writing, it's really an example of the pathetic fallacy. [2.]
The authors have reified an abstraction called life. (Life doesn't exist; has no capacities, and does not experience anything... let alone something called evolution.) What we find in the world are specific living organisms; not life.

The sentence should read; 'Common to all living organisms is a tendency to suffer genetic mutation and change over time.' (This by the way is a proposition that I thin all creationists would agree with.)

In my opinion materialist prefer to speak of life in the abstract for the simple reason that all living organisms possess genetic code; and we know of no way this code can be produced by the random actions of inert matter. The idea is floated around that something called 'life' exists (or existed) that doesn't have genetic code. There is no warrant from science for such a belief or dream.

The pretense (here unspoken) is that 'life' has the capacity to 'evolve' upward... that it has the capacity to gain specified information. This isn't a claim that has any scientific warrant. What we see is the opposite.

Contrary to what some materialists claim, it is Not only creationists who refer to evolutionary theory by the Darwin monicker... as this example shows.

Notes;
1. Metabolism-First Origin of Life Won’t Work Creation/Evolution Headlines 01/05/2010
2. 'The pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy is the treatment of inanimate objects as if they had human feelings, thought, or sensations.[citation needed] The pathetic fallacy is a special case of the fallacy of reification. The word 'pathetic' in this use is related to 'empathy' (capability of feeling), and is not pejorative.
The pathetic fallacy is also related to the concept of personification. Personification is direct and explicit in the ascription of life and sentience to the thing in question,
3. From the article;
“We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from, but there are strong reasons to believe that it had existed.”
- Strong reasons? I guess you could say they have strong reasons if you call a rejection of God and a belief in materialism strong reasons. Apart from that there's no reason I can see of to believe such a scenario ever existed. (Again; this isn't science; this is metaphysical speculation.)
4. 'Later in the paper, they disparaged the habit of applying Darwinian terms, like “selection values”, to prebiotic molecules. Such terms are “devoid of meaning” in a chemical context, they said. “The unfortunate usage of words with clear Darwinian connotations—such as adaptation, fitness landscape, and coevolution—in the realm of pre-Darwinian systems cannot be overemphasized.”
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they do this themselves?
5. 'Three days after our report, Science Daily reported about this paper, based on a press release from Free University of Barcelona. Aside from getting the name of NASA wrong, they defined life as “self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”
- As the authors said themselves, you can't have 'Darwinian' evolution in non-living (reproducing) entities.
- Systems aren't people; they're not 'capable' of anything. They exhibit behavior (motion) this is not the same as being capable of these actions.
- There is no such thing as being capable of evolution. This is more reification.
6. 'Since subsequent Darwinian evolution has nothing necessarily to do with the origin of genetic information, the statement lends more support to a definition of life made by astrobiologist Benton Clark: “life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism.”
- Though this is one of the better definitions of 'life' I've seen in the e. literature, I need to point out that this is more reification. There is no such thing as life. If you replace 'life' with living organisms, the definition is not that bad.
- Since life doesn't exist, it can hardly reproduce. (I realize many people will think I'm being pedantic here, but I think it's important that people think in concrete terms and not in abstract terms... i.e. as much as possible. Abstractionism leads to sloppy thinking and is a source of almost endless error.

Playing with the building blocks of life

- If you read the popular science magazines, and especially any stories about Origins, you'll have come across the phrase the 'building blocks of life'. I find it odd that in an age where people have discovered the incredible (bottomless) complexity of the cell we still have materialists using this phrase.

It's a product of a bygone age; an age that imagined 'life' was a very simple thing, and that imagined the first primordial cell consisted of something akin to a blob of jello. The phrase conjures up an image of workmen using bricks to build a house or school. In this scenario life was a matter of rearranging the the inert matter of an early earth until one came upon the right arrangement.

The phrase 'building blocks' also conjures up an image of a child's set of toy blocks.
The problem for any materialist, or for anyone who doesn't want to accept any kind of creation for the origin of living forms on this planet, is that 'life' is most certainly not a simple matter.

To get a picture of how serious the problem is for the materialist we might image a child playing with some blocks. The blocks are brightly colored, but because he comes from a poor family, they have no letters stamped onto them. How long do you think it will take the child to spell out a message with the blocks? Let's give him a message he needs to spell out, as a metaphor for the origin of life. Let's say he has to spell out the message, ''Me thinks Richard Dawkins is a weasel.'' (Or; ''Look mommy, I've created life." How long is it going to take him?

Summary;
Since the materialist has no access to intelligence (or information) this is the true picture of the materialist dilemma. Some people (not yours truly) might be tempted to call this a blockhead cosmology. (Do the molecular machines involved in producing ATP look like toy blocks to anyone? Do they look like they were made from blocks?)

You wonder why materialists keep using this phrase. Is it because they want people to think the whole OOL issue is a simple one; that it's really no problem for the materialist scenario? (They need to put out a new edition of Darwin's phrase book; the one they're using is badly out of date.) The discoveries of cellular biology have carved an obituary in the tombstone of materialism.

If we can be allowed a little rhetorical flourish, we might say that the laws of physics are a prison from which life cannot escape. It takes an intelligence transcending the merely physical to provide the information that will allow a living organism to be created.

The scrabble of [OOL] speculation hasn't produced any believable stories on how matter can transcend itself, on how it can pull itself up by its own bootstraps. The rather obvious fact is that matter is content to be matter; that it has no capacity to be anything else. (A situation we should be grateful for. Imagine working a painting if the canvas had a mind and will of its own; imagine working on a sculpture if the stone had its own ideas on transformation :=)

Building blocks without a plan (blueprint) are useless. Can bricks 'self-organize' into a building?

Hurling a few thunderbolts around isn't going to help this Cyclopean project get off the ground. Stones remain stones, and no living forms emerge to climb the walls of this dark and hopeless prison. Not only is Materialism a one-eyed view of the universe, it's a view grown blind. You can cobble together stones to build a prison, but the walls won't breathe, reproduce or live.

From a philosophical view [i.e. linguistic analysis] the phrase building block is meaningless unless we assume a builder. Without a builder all you have are blocks.

Notes;
1. Blocks;
- Children's wooden building toys, attested by 1885, from block (n.).
- 1693: Alphabet Nursery Blocks were originally developed in 17th century England. The philosopher John Locke, in 1693, made the statement that "dice and playthings, with letters on them to teach children the alphabet by playing" would make learning to read a more enjoyable experience. - Wiki
- 1798: Witold Rybczynski has found that the earliest mention of building bricks for children appears in Maria and R.L. Edgeworth's Practical Education (1798). Called "rational toys," blocks were intended to teach children about gravity and physics, as well as spatial relationships that allow them to see how many different parts become a whole. - Wiki

Evolutionary theory as a Reification fallacy

This essay is a critique of the theory of evolution and makes the claim that the theory, that reports to be scientific, is more like the argument of a Sophist than the sober presentation of a scientist.

Just as secular philosophers want to make use of various 'transcendentals' (causation, reality, uniformity, etc.) [2.] without accepting the transcendent God who alone can give us a foundation for them - so the evolutionist wants to make use of various abstractions, and to treat them as if they were real entities. This is known as the fallacy of reification. [1.]

The theory of evolution [M2M] depends upon reifications such as; time, chance, natural selection, evolution, life, and emergence. (There are others.) It gives a creative power to entities that have none. Without these reifications the theory collapses into a mere claim (based on materialism). What is presented as evidence for evolution is little more than a collection of logical fallacies.

I want to take a brief look at some of these reifications; ones that are integral to the theory.

Time:
- Time was famously called (by George Wald) the hero of the plot. [2.] Here we see time presented as a kind of agent that can accomplish things; but time in itself (if time exists) can do nothing. It's often said by evolutionists that given enough time anything is possible. Here time is presented as having creative power; but it's not true that given enough 'time' anything is possible. An ounce of silver will never turn into an ounce of gold, or a dollar bill, or a Shakespeare sonnet. Never.

Chance;
- We're told that evolutionary events happen by chance; but chance isn't an entity that can do things. To see it this way is to reify the concept. When we speak of chance we're admitting we don't see the cause of an event, that it appears to have no cause. This however isn't the case; because we don't see the cause doesn't mean there isn't one. (Even radioactive decay has a source in entropy; as does genetic mutation.) Chance offers the evolutionist (materialist) a way to escape from the bounds of physical law.

One of the early Greek atomists explained the 'emergence' (a term often used as a reification) of living forms by speculating that some atom 'swerved' in its normal course. This is actually a quite brilliant insight, as he realized that physical law would never lead to living forms... that it would have to deviate from its normal (rigid) course to do so. He realized that 'life' depended on a violation of the laws of physics. Chance is an abstraction; to think it can do things, to speak of it as having creative powers is to reify it. Chance can't do anything.

Life;
- Life is often reified in the literature of evolutionists, and in their accounts of the origins of living organisms. We're told that life (somehow) emerged from inert matter. Life is spoken of as if it were a thing, as if it were a chick trying to emerge from a shell. Life is pictured as existing within the dead rocks and trying to find a way to emerge... to emerge from a rock the way a chick emerges from a shell. Life is seen as a goal directed entity... as being alive before it's alive as it were. It desires to come forth.

Much of this of course isn't stated as baldly as I have, it's merely hinted at in the way the word is used. I call this use reification because there is no such thing as life. What we see are living organisms; we do not see life. To speak of life as something that exists apart from concrete living organisms is reification.
(Evolutionists speak of 'life' rather than living organisms because they know how complex organisms are. They want to paint the picture of some simple thing 'emerging' first... something less complex than any known living organism.)

Natural selection;
Darwin once said, "If I have erred in giving to natural selection great power... or in having exaggerated its power... I have at least as I hope done good service in aiding to overthrow the the dogma of separate creation." [4.]

- Charles Darwin popularized the concept of natural selection. (He did not originate this idea; despite what your textbook claimed.) We might however give him the honor of being the first one to reify the concept. In his writings natural selection is spoken of, not as the abstraction that it is, but as an abstraction that has creative powers. He pulls the rhetorical switch of referring to it as an agent that can cause creative change; that can in fact create new organs and new species. Natural selection can do no such thing. It's not a real entity; it has no creative power.

What we call NS is an abstraction drawn from certain observations made of animal populations. Under differing conditions some animals prosper and some suffer decline. Changes are seen within the group; and the norm might get larger or smaller, etc. This change is then compared (by analogy) with the selection process we see take place in animal husbandry or breeding experiments. e.g. the pigeon fancier can 'create' new types of pigeon by selecting certain birds to breed with certain other birds. No such intelligent intervention (based on a blueprint and goal) exists within the 'natural' world. This makes the analogy a false one, and a meaningless one. Having said this, in no known cases does the animal involved become some other animal. (ie. a dog turned into a cat.) The animal kind remains what it was. (The pigeon remains a pigeon, the dog remains a dog.)

When Darwin claimed (with no warrant, and against all the evidence available to him) that 'natural selection' could accomplish what the animal breeder could not he was guilty of an egregious reification. He made this abstraction more creative than human beings; when in fact it has no creative power at all. The process we call NS is blind and without purpose, and has the effect of eliminating most variations.

Evolution;
- The word evolution is often spoken of in ways that constitute a reification. Evolution is spoken of as if it were a concrete entity, and one with creative powers. It's often spoken of as if it had goals, and if it had foresight. (It can have neither.) Evolution is an abstraction, not a concrete entity. We often read that some animal 'evolved' a new organ. This is more reification. Evolution isn't a process an animal engages in. It isn't some tool animals have that allow them to modify themselves. We're repeatedly told that evolution has done this or that; but e. isn't an entity that can do things. Evolution is an abstraction that brings together various observations and speculations. It's more a way of looking at the world than a real process, let alone a real entity.

- Summary; what we see in the theory of evolution is a collection of reification fallacies masquerading as concrete evidence. These reifications take the place of an intelligent creator. (e.g. God) They can't do the work they're called upon as they have neither real existence, intelligence, creative power, will, or plan. The abstract can't be a real substitute for the concrete.

In addition to all this (as if it wasn't enough) Evolution theory depends upon an evolution friendly universe; upon a world where entropy doesn't operate, where mutations don't have negative effects, where there's some kind of mystical pull up toward progress, instead of an entropic descent to death and decay. It depends upon a world where the impossible happens and physical law can be violated. No such place exists in the universe. The only place such a world exists is in the human imagination.

M. Johnson [frfarer -at- gmail.com] 3/24/2010

Notes;
1. Reification;
'Also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. - wiki
2. 'It is often stated by evolutionists that with enough time, anything could happen regardless of how improbable it might be. Nobel prize winner George Wald has said, "Time is the hero of the plot. Given enough time anything can happen -- the impossible becomes probable, the improbable becomes certain."
Prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley has stated that, given enough time, monkeys typing on typewriters could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. - Darwin's enigma/Luther Sunderland/ch.3
- Evolutionists make it sound as if time were money; as if 'accumulating' it allowed you to do more things (like take a vacation or buy a truck). Time isn't a thing that can be stored.
- the Shakespeare quote shows how desperate some evolutionists are; the claim is absurd... and an embarassment to any honest materialist. It shows the lengths some evolutionists are willing to go to to try and deceive the public. The 'illustration' could prove nothing, even if it worked... which it most assuredly would not. (The poor monkeys couldn't even type up a copy of Darwin's Origins. And where are the labor laws :=)
3. Transcendental;
(Philos.) In the Kantian system, of or pertaining to that which can be determined a priori in regard to the fundamental principles of all human knowledge. What is transcendental, therefore, transcends empiricism; but is does not transcend all human knowledge, or become transcendent. It simply signifies the a priori or necessary conditions of experience which, though affording the conditions of experience, transcend the sphere of that contingent knowledge which is acquired by experience.
3a. 'Transcendental has reference to those beliefs or principles which are not derived from experience, and yet are absolutely necessary to make experience possible or useful. - Webster's/1913
4. Quote taken from 'Darwin's Proof - by Cornelius Hunter/p.81
5. Models;
- E. theory uses various models that get reified. The famous tree of life that was 'planted' (drawn) by Charles Darwin is an example of this. No such tree exists. This is an abstraction that pretends to be real by being given an artistic representation. (That it was the only illustration in the Origins might tell us something; e.g. that it was on this point that Darwin felt his case to be the weakest, and the most in need of bolstering help.) It's fine to have models, but the model should never be taken to be real. Unfortunately this has happened with the tree of life. Evidence is examined with the assumption the tree of life exists; so that the model rules over the data. (The tree is now full of dry rot and about to collapse, showing us that it was indeed just another reification.)

Science and the fallacy of abstractionism

Current writing on various scientific topics is replete with the fallacy of reification. Examples are everywhere. (One can devote a daily blog to the subject.) This is the error of making concrete what is an abstraction; i.e. treating an abstraction as if it were a real entity. [1.] I want to take a look at a recent example.

Quotes and comments;

A. ' Alejandro Jenkins got the cover story of Scientific American for speculating about “life in the multiverse,” according to Science Daily. Jenkins noted that the existence of life in our universe is constrained by requirements for the laws of physics (the Anthropic Principle). [2.]

- There's no such thing as 'requirements for the laws of physics' (if this awkward phrase has any meaning at all). Jenkins is reifying an abstraction. He's reifying 'requirements' as no such thing exists. These are abstractions; collectively an abstraction. An abstraction can't make demands or require anything; nor does it have creative powers.

B. 'Life on Earth can exist because these requirements are satisfied in our universe. Jenkins noted that the existence of carbon, for instance, is possible because of precise values for physical constants. So far, this is like natural theology: “So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics.” [2.]

- He's reified life. There is no such thing as life. What we see are living organisms.

He's also mistaken in thinking that if something necessary to X exists, that X necessarily exists. This is a logical fallacy.

Need we point out that 'multiverse' is another abstraction. It doesn't exist. (While the term universe is in a sense an abstraction, it at least refers to something we know is real.)

If matter is all there is, how can anything be beyond physics?

Since references to God are out, we might wonder how he knows what explanations are legitimate? Is it by studying the interior of stars? This is just another example of someone not realizing they're doing philosophy; someone who's engaged in metaphysical speculation but imagines it's some kind of 'neutral' science.

Summary;
What he's done (and he's not alone) is to give creative powers to the laws of physics. (Which are abstractions formulated from observations.) This process is rampant among advocates of evolution. Examples of reification include natural selection and chance; where these are spoken of as actual entities, and ones that have creative powers (i.e. are responsible for creating organs and organisms). So integral is this process to the theory of evolution that it's hard to see how it could survive without it.

e.g. A typical Evolutionary scenario has 'life' being created by 'time' and 'chance' and the play of 'physics'. The first 'primordial cell' then 'evolved' into more and more 'complex' organisms; a 'process' that culminated in the 'emergence' of 'intelligence' and 'personality'.) All of these are abstractions of one sort or the other. So Evolutionary theory then is a long string (chain) of abstractions that somehow created the planet and all life forms on it. (I guess we could call that the power of positive thinking.)

In all this he just assumes that matter is all there is. This again isn't 'science' but metaphysics.

Notes;
1. Reification;
- also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness; is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. - wiki
2. What Value Do Evolutionary Explanations Provide? Creation/Evolution Headlines 01/13/2010
#1. We’re here because we’re here
3. From interview with Jenkins; Science Daily
"For example, if the fundamental forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly, it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics."
- 'Building block of life' is another abstraction. (You notice sand is never considered to be a 'building block' of computers.)
- How does he know what is or is not outside the realm of physics. (Physics is another abstraction; here it sounds like it issues edicts on what it can or cannot be. It sounds quite PC by the way.)
4. 'The theory of "cosmic inflation," which was developed in the 1980s in order to solve certain puzzles about the structure of our universe, predicts that ours is just one of countless universes to emerge from the same primordial vacuum.
- Theories don't predict anything; theories aren't people. Cosmic inflation eh? Isn't this another reification? (Just asking.)
- Primordial vacuum? Sounds like more abstractionism to me. (Is it? I don't know... but it sure sounds like it.)
5. 'Given some of science's current ideas about high-energy physics, it is plausible that those other universes might each have different physical interactions. So perhaps it's no mystery that we would happen to occupy the rare universe in which conditions are just right to make life possible. This is analogous to how, out of the many planets in our universe, we occupy the rare one where conditions are right for organic evolution.
- You have to love it. Here some amorphous 'conditions' are responsible for organic evolution. (Organic Evolution being another reification.) If you have the right 'condition's then presto! particle physicists sprout up all over (smiling and holding magazine covers).
- I think we see here how the multiverse notion has 'evolved' as a way of getting rid of mystery. One of the tenets of scientism is that no mysteries are allowed... that when scientists have completed their 'mapping project' they'll be able to answer all questions, and no mysteries will be left. (It's a mystery how they know all this in advance... but heh, that's just how it is.)
6. '...And without gravity, matter wouldn't coalesce into planets, stars and galaxies.
- I wonder if gravity isn't an abstraction. Wasn't it because early physicists thought of gravity as a concrete entity that they imagined aether existed?

Materialism; man as an object of science

In this post I want to look at what happens in the fields of political theory and sociology when the methodology of the hard sciences is applied to human beings.

Quotes and comments.

A. 'The historicist conception of "socio-cultural phenomena" does not permit the acceptance of societal structures of individuality, which, as such, are not subject to historical development...' [1. for full quotation]

- I apologize for the difficult language of this quote, but the basic point isn't hard to understand. I think we see here why the scientist and the academic (who imagines he's doing science) prefers to think in terms of classes rather than individuals. They imagine they can treat the class 'scientifically' while they admit they can't treat the individual (qua individual) scientifically. (Only by studying the class, and drawing up 'laws' from that study can one then use those laws to deal with the individual... who isn't seen as being himself, but merely a class representative.)

We see here yet again how scientism is at war with the individual. (Not only the individual, but with relationships, marriage, family, small groups, etc.) It insists on dealing with classes and so murders the individual. (e.g. Marxism) This is done in the name of methodology. The class is held up as the true expression of the human... and all for the sake of doing science. As Lyell said Uniformitarianism was necessary for science, so Marx claimed that the class concept was necessary for science. (i.e. for the 'soft' sciences.)

The Biblical view is a lot different; and again it protects us from the fallacies and delusions of Humanist thought. The creationist model isn't obsessed with turning everything into hard science. It denies that methodological naturalism be applied to all things, and most especially to human beings. Man is not to be analyzed in terms of class. The individual man is not to be sacrificed for the sake of methodology. What's important is the truth; not making things easy for scientists. (In sociology we see scientism gone mad. To be able to deal with man 'scientifically' it turns him into an object.)

It's heresy to treat man as a scientific object; as an object of scientific study. (It's also an illusion, as the 'man' the deal with is a phantasm, an empty abstraction. He's as unreal as one of the 'worker' posters that use to foul the soviet union; one of the tractor men and hammer wielding women.) Man is thus sacrificed on the altar of scientism. (The analysis that comes out of such mistaken notions is at best worthless; but unfortunately has been deeply pernicious, leading to the deaths of untold millions in the communist experiments near and far.)

Communism is a classic case of scientism.

B. 'Man does not exist for the sake of any form of society.' [2.]

- Man is a separate creation; therefore he can't be treated as just one more object for scientific (naturalistic) study. Man is the only creature made in the image of God; therefore he cannot be treated as just one more object of animal studies. What turns science (the investigation of creation) into scientism is this insistence on treating all entities in the universe in the same way. (ie. seeing them as matter in motion) At the heart of scientism is the method of naturalism (methodological naturalism as some have called it). Taking the bible seriously (as the word of god, and thus as truth about the reality of our situation) forbids us from applying this methodology to human beings.

Summary;
If man is merely a member of a class he must look for 'salvation' in politics, and in the State. This is just one more negative consequence of scientism. (i.e. materialism leads to scientism leads to class analysis leads to the apotheosis of the state.) We end up going down (and it is down) this long road because we've rejected biblical Christianity (with its foundation in creation). It's true that all things are connected; but not in the way the pantheists believe. All things are connected because all things were made by god (and for god).

At the heart of biblical Christianity is man's relationship with his Creator. Any system (or science) that denies him the right to live in conformity with God's word is anti-Christian. When the materialist denies God exists, and removes it from any consideration in intellectual thought, he can no longer be right about any of his ultimate conclusions. The deification of the state, and the death of man is the inevitable result of a consistent materialism.


Notes;
1. 'The historicist conception of "socio-cultural phenomena" does not permit the acceptance of societal structures of individuality, which, as such, are not subject to historical development, since they are exactly the transcendental conditions for every possible experience of factual societal relationships. - The Christian philosophy of law, politics and the state' - E.L. Hebden Taylor/p.403
2. 'Man does not exist for the sake of any form of society.' - Riessen CP/413
- Man does not exist for the sake of the state, nor does he exist for the sake of science. (Scientists have such an exalted view of themselves in our day that you sometimes get the impression the universe exists merely so that they can study it, and have something to do.) To treat man as an object of scientific study is to make science (scientism) more important than the creature being studied. In Christian terms what we want is knowledge, not to practice science. We already know who man is, we don't need to study him as if he were some strange deep sea fish that's recently been discovered. Shall we murder man just to give some people a job? Is there nothing else they can do but to fabricate fallacious theories about this creature, and thus lead people astray? (They can't possibly comprehend Man they have a false idea of his origin.)

3. For those who are interested in studying the subject in greater depth, I recommend the chapter 'The christian view of the state' in 'The Christian philosophy of the law, the state and politics' by Hebden Taylor [It's around 100 pages long.]

4. 'The common error of both individualism and collectivism, in typically humanistic fashion, is that they take their starting point in man, whether that be the individual or the group. The biblical view of man in society transcends this dilemna.
In the light of the Word of God we know that God created man for community with his fellow men and as a social being. This means that man does not find his purpose in himself as Locke supposed nor in the group as Karl Marx supposed but in the God who made him.' - CP/p.423

The laws of science (what laws?)

It's common for people to speak glibly about the laws of science; but it's far from clear what this means, or what it should mean. Are all 'laws' the same? Do the same laws operate in every aspect of life on this planet?

Quotes and comments;
A. Joseph Needham has pointed out :
"Biological organization . . . cannot be reduced to physio-chemical organization because nothing can ever be reduced to anything. The laws which operate at the level of the organic do not operate on the level of the inorganic.'' [1.]

- Isn't it the pretense of scientism (naturalism) that the same laws operate at all levels? ie. that the same laws are at work in living organisms as in stars or comets? Isn't scientism the denial of biological laws? ie. a denial that when it comes to biology, genetic code is determinative (information) and not the laws of physics.

A problem we have when we try to untangle the mess called 'origin of life studies' is that the word law is used in several different ways; in ways that aren't often spelled out clearly. e.g. Can we speak of the 'laws' of biology? Are there laws at work in the genetic code? Should we speak of the laws of biology or use another term?

B. 'This brief resume of the development of adequate "organic" categories of explanation in the biological sciences enables us to realize more clearly what the crucial problem of the social and moral sciences is today. In essence it is a methodological rather than an empirical one, namely, that of articulating the thought-forms and categories of explanation which are really appropriate to human life and the human level.
In short, it is the problem of finding out how to think about human beings as persons rather than things and how to give expression to the fact that they are persons or minds rather than mere things.' [1.]

- I agree with those who insist we talk about human beings, living organisms, and inert matter in different terms; with different terminology. One of the regrettable consequences of logical positivism (and popularly with scientism) is that the same methodology is used to study rocks and to study children. To see human beings in terms of matter in motion (under the sway of the laws of physics) has been a disaster for intellectual thought and for society in general. To see man truly you have to look at him in terms of moral law (as defined by God) not in terms of the laws of chemistry. [2.]

Notes;
1. The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics and the State - E.L. Hebden Taylor p. 388
- This excellent book (a kind of introduction to the work of Herman Dooyeweerd) is available online for free at Reformed Publishing Project.
2. To say this isn't to deny that certain physical laws aren't operate in human beings, but to deny that they are what's vital. Human beings are who they are not because of physical laws working on inert matter, but because they were informed by the 'law' of God. (i.e. by intelligent design)

Looking for God in all the wrong gaps

Evolutionists like to complain that every time creationists find something they can't explain, they claim this is evidence for god. (How many people do this I don't know.)

This is not the point I try to make. It's not the things we can't explain that give evidence of God... but that everything gives evidence of God.

That people exist is evidence for God; that they do science is evidence for god, that they ask questions, that they care about answering question. The moon, the stars, the air we breathe, dogs, (even cats) the world; everything is evidence for God. It's not that we need God to make sense of (explain) a few mysteries... it's that without a Creator nothing makes sense.

Why is this so? The basic reason is that Materialists can't explain any of this; can't explain anything at all. (ie. can't get to square one... can't even come up with that first magical and primordial cell.)

The materialist has to explain how all of human life and thought was somehow resident in the rocks of early earth... and even in hydrogen gas. All the ideas of the philosophers, all the ideas of scientists, all the lines of poetry, all the equations of mathematicians (etc.) have to somehow have been hiding in rocks. All we see around us was somehow imprisoned in inert matter... and over the eons somehow managed to come out and find expression. (If the history of the earth is one long unbroken chain of being, then everything had to have been existent in that primordial cell.)

I can only speak for myself but I can't believe such a story for a second. (As a lad I just accepted it with the other slop they handed out at the schools it was my misfortune to be sent to; but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.) Somehow the genetic code (a trillion times more complex than any human written code) was hiding in a piece of rock. I just don't see this as being possible.

What has happened is that the origins debate has become a conflict between religions, between worldviews. On the one hand we have Rationalism (materialism) and on the other hand we have biblical Christianity. The Rationalists aren't interested in the truth of the matter, but only in maintaining their cultural and political advantage. (That's a generalization, but I think it's mainly correct.) They bet the farm on a bad argument, and it's failed them.

People like Charles Darwin imagined 'life' was a simple matter... and so imagined it wouldn't be hard to spontaneously arise. (Though none of them had any idea how.) Now we find that living organisms (the cell, etc.) are billions of times more complex than anyone ever began to imagine. The complexity has stunned the materialists, and left them holding a losing hand. They don't see anyway out of their predicament and so they've turned to power politics to win the debate. [1.]

Summary; I don't recommend that people use a 'god of the gaps' method of argument. For the materialist everything constitutes a gap in his ability to account for the world we live in. He can't explain the origin of living organisms; nor can he explain human consciousness and intelligence. He can't explain meaning or offer a rational account of human experience.

- For the materialist all things reduce to matter in motion, and so the possibility of rational definition is destroyed. You can't define any human concept in terms of matter in motion. (Try giving an account of science, causation, explanation, reality, etc. in terms of matter in motion.) The materialist can only talk about science (etc.) if he refuses to use his own ontology (metaphysics) but borrows that of the theist.

M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]

Notes;
1. They mock, they ridicule, they slander, they lie, they engage in deceit, they bully, they suppress opinion, they tyrannize people, they use the courts, they use the State, they use the media... all trying to stall the inevitable. The idea 'life' just 'emerged' from inert matter is an idea that's going down the tubes. It's only a matter of when.
2. To say the materialist can't give an account of anything doesn't mean he or she can't do scientific research, or that they can't describe the things they see.
3. I've used terms like billion and trillion; but it's impossible to give any exact figure.

Scripture and science; enemies or allies?

The question I want to consider today is this; can we separate God's word from God's world?

Quotes and comments;

A. "In a word, in physical science, he must keep strictly to physical induction and demonstration; in religious inquiry to moral proof, but never confound the two together... The mistake consists in confounding these two distinct objects together; and imagining we are pursuing science when we introduce the authority of scripture." - Baden Powell/1838

- We're continually being told we must not confuse 'science' with special revelation, or science with religion. This however is much more difficult than it's made to sound. I would remind people that it's Christiain theology that speaks of a creator/creature distinction... and that no other metaphysics makes this as plain as the Bible does. This means that God created the world, but the world isn't god, neither is god resident within its physical structure.
It's because of this distinction (a distinctive of the Reformed tradition) that science is possible. This means that the world isn't holy (neither is any place in it) - that all that is holy is God and his word.

This being said we don't know the creation correctly if we ignore what God (through his prophets) has said about it. If you ignore the fact it was created by an Intelligent being you cannot be entirely correct about your conclusions when you do research. If you ignore the Fall you will go wrong in many areas of thought. If you ignore the distinction between man and animal you will fall into a swamp of errors. If you ignore the fact man was made in the image of god you will go horribly wrong in psychology and other related studies.

So called secular science is riddled with the errors and fallacies caused by ignoring basic Christian doctrines. (eg. Freudianism, Positivism, neuro-psychology, utopianism, etc.) In my opinion the best scientific method is one that operates within the boundaries of basic christian doctrines. The alternative to this isn't neutrality (an abstraction and phantasm) but engaging in scientific inquiry within the boundaries of materialism (with its inevitable descent into reductionism).

We continually see statements that insist 'religion' and 'science' be separated. What these vague statements really mean is that Christianity and science must be separated. The pretense is that 'science' (scientists) is free from metaphysical presuppositions. This is a naive claim at best, and can only be considered bogus when uttered by most people, as they assuredly know better. What it ends up meaning is that the atheist (etc.) can operate in terms of his metaphysics, but the christian cannot. [2.]

Summary; Atheists and others talk about the necessity of separating religion and science, but this claim is based on a confusion in terms. Since religion is an obsolete term, let's use the term worldview instead. Does it make any sense to say we must separate worldviews and science? Should a person be required to set aside their worldview when doing science? Is this even possible?

Notes;
1. Darwin's God - Cornelius Hunter/p.147
2. In a democracy this is an unfair situation. If people want to operate this way with their own money fine; but if we're talking about tax dollars, atheists (materialists) have no business claiming Christians should be banned from the scientific establishment or process. (i.e. if they're paying into they have as much right as anyone else to a place within the system.)
3. I don't think you can separate 'religion' and 'science' anymore than you can separate man into body and soul.

Just whose house is it?

Today I want to do something different, and take a look at a painting that was controversial in the era of Charles Darwin.

Quotes and comments;

A. In his book 'Darwin's God' Cornelius Hunter talks about a painting called 'Christ in the house of his parents' that caused a lot of controversy among the Victorian elites. (Including a negative review from a certain Charles Dickens.) Before I include any comments, you might want to take a look.

Charles Darwin (I mean Dickens) called the painting "mean, odious, revolting and repulsive." [1.]

- What did the Victorians object to in this painting? Don't they betray a distaste for the Bible, and the simple gospel? Don't they show a distaste for the real God and a preference for abstraction? Jesus is real in this painting; not a wisp of smoke, or a trace of celestial gas. He's a real person, and this I think is the offense of the painting.

They didn't want a real God, and one way to get this 'bloody' character out of the house (as it were) was to deconstruct the idea of a creator and a creation. If they could persuade people the doctrine of creation (in its current or Biblical form) wasn't true, they could take the Creator by the ear and remove him from society's sitting room.

A real (personal) God is someone who makes demands, and to whom one might be responsible; but a divine spirit or Mind (Deism) was too distant to be that, and wouldn't concern itself with such banalities.

The attack on creationist ideas was one and the same as the attack on biblical theology, and that horrid bible. (The bible was considered obscene, and in as much need of concealment as the naked legs of a piano.) The Victorians wanted to be judged solely by their own standards; and certainly not by those of Christ. This being the case all 'supports' for biblical Christianity had to go. This meant biblical creation had to go.

As Deism had been 'proved' by showing how evil the god of the bible was (with examples Richard Dawkins still uses) so evolution was 'proved' by showing how evil the creation was (with examples Dawkins still uses today). In Christian terms, they preferred their ideas and speculations to reality, and didn't want anything intruding on their comfortable view of things.

The Deist god is as far from the God revealed in this painting ("He was wounded for our transgressions...") as the doctrine of evolution is from the doctrine of creation. In Victorian theology Jesus and his wounds (along with his family) are removed, so that all that remains in the the scene are the sheep. (Who are given smiles no doubt.)

Jesus famously said, "I work and my Father works..."
"Not around here you don't," said the Victorians. "Not without a government stamped work permit. Get thee behind the scene, behind the curtain." They wanted a god that wouldn't interfere with their lives, a god limited by their standards.

The title of the painting reminds me of the famous hymn 'In my Father's house'. Whether it was titled to draw this connection I don't know. Victorians like Charles Darwin didn't want anything to do with such a notion. In fact they wanted God out of their house.

Summary; these few remarks can't begin to deal with such a complex phenomenon as the Victorian reaction to this painting. A book could easily be written on the subject. But it gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the people who rejected Biblical creation for Evolution. As Hunter points out, their decision to do so was based more on religious (metaphysical) motivations than it was on an investigation into biology.

M. Johnson [frfarer -at- gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Darwin's God: evolution and the problem of evil - Cornelius Hunter/p.130
- I recommend this book highly. It's one of the best I've read. It gives a lot of background on the Origins debate that's fascinating.
2. "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." - John 5:17
3. What the 'ordinary' people of the time thought about the painting I don't know.
4. Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote a worthy book on the Victorians called 'Darwin and the Darwinian revolution'.
5. I wonder if anyone's written anything about Dickens and Darwin. They seem very much of a pair. I'm not surprised Dickens reacted to the painting as he did, as I can't remember any biblical Christianity in any of his novels. (Think of 'A Christmas Carol')
6. Christian 'liberals' of our day are little different than the Victorians. The god they present to us has little (if anything) to do with the God presented in the Bible. (They get as offended by young earth creationists, as the Victorians did by this painting.)

The theory of evolution as an Enlightenment project

I think we can best understand modern evolutionary theory if we see its origin in the Age of Enlightenment.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Of the Age of Reason Charles Frankel once
wrote :
"In the view of historians, the general pattern of the Age of Reason can now be identified. Its unity of purpose had a decisive effect on the course of subsequent historical development. The special effort of the Enlightenment was to find a foundation in every field, from the profane sciences to revelation, from music to morals, and theology to commerce, such that thinking and action could be made independent of speculative metaphysics and supernatural revelation.
Religion was treated mainly as an appendage to morals
and discussed as though it were a part of physics." [1.]

- Erasmus Darwin was part of the Enlightenment project to find secular foundations for all of thought. He focused on biology, as did his grandson Charles. He wanted to make geology and biology independent of special revelation. The theory of evolution, as it developed, didn't come from pressing observations of the world that forced such a view on people; but rather came from this grand Enlightenment project. The early evolutionists of this time may have thought they were getting free of metaphysics, but they were merely' changing one metaphysical worldview for another. The foundation of E. theory is the Enlightenment project; and at its heart it is profoundly philosophical in nature. The theory of E. is as philosophical as the ideas of democracy or communism that were also developing around the same time.

To be able to understand E. theory we have to look at it in its historical and intellectual context. Merely arguing over fossils won't get us anywhere. (We do want to come to some kind of agreement don't we?) You don't find theories tucked away in the rocks like trilobites; theories are the creations of human beings; of men living in certain societies and cultures. The further we stray in our investigations from inert matter the more 'philosophical' the theories get. This is why comparisons of E. theory with gravity, and heliocentrism are so pointless and nonsensical.

Man is a unique creation, and when we come to the subject of man we have human beings investigating themselves. This is what makes the subject of human origins a philosophical one. A key question that faces us is this; can man understand himself? (Is there any reason to believe he can?) To do so it would appear he must get outside himself... but how can he do this? The situation is much harder for the materialist; as he must give an account of how a bit of matter in motion can understand itself. (I see no way he can accomplish this.)

In dealing with the theory of E. we are dealing with a philosophical issue. This is as true now as it was during the Enlightenment period. A materialist must be an evolutionist; there's no way around it. People like to call themselves evolutionists (or even Darwinists) but they don't like to call themselves materialists for some reason. (I guess it gives the game away.)

The counterpart to this is that a theist must be a creationist. Well; you'd think so... but I happen to know some theists who deny not only that they're creationists, but who deny that they even believe in creation. I don't understand how that's possible... but that's what they claim. (I believe Ken Miller is one of this small elite group.)

There are theists (even ones who profess the Christian faith) who claim god evolved sometime after the Big bang event... perhaps after life began to evolve. Some claim god is still evolving. (Ain't theology a hoot? You can't beat it for comedy.)

Notes;
1. The Christian philosophy of law, politics and the State - E.L. Hebden Taylor
- This excellent book is available as a free download at Reformationalpublishingproject.com
2. The Age of Enlightenment was followed (not surprisingly) by the Age of Revolution.

Darwin and Descartes

Darwin admitted that to suppose the eye just evolved seemed absurd. (Absurd in the highest degree, were his exact words.) He didn't let this stop him however, as he went on to show how it was possible to doubt even this seeming proof for creation.

Quotes and comments;

A. "To suppose the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [1.]

But having admitted this, he then went on to warn us against being misled by our intuitions, as they are highly susceptible to misconception.

This sounds a lot like Descartes to me. So, did Darwin use Descartes method of radical doubt, and apply it to the 'intuition' of creation? It would appear so.

Darwin plays the game of doubting the 'intuitions' of creationists (he of course didn't believe the Bible was the word of God) but placing great confidence in his own anti-creationist intuitions. That the world was not created by God, was something he apparently couldn't doubt. [2.]

Notes;
1. Darwin's God - Cornelius Hunter/p.74
2. In my opinion Charles Darwin was a materialist; but I doubt many think he was anything more than a lukewarm deist.
3. When Darwin makes reference to the amazing 'contrivances' of the eye I assume he was referring to William Paley.
e.g. Paley compares the telescope and the eye in ch. 3 of Natural Theology;
"How is it possible, under circumstances of such close affinity, and under the operation of equal evidence, to exclude contrivance from the one; yet to acknowledge the proof of contrivance having been employed, as the plainest and clearest of all propositions, in the other?..."
- Paley uses several words Darwin later did; e.g. contrivance, correction, adjust...

Who is man?

The key questions in philosophy are 'who is man?' and 'who is god?' (i.e. what is the nature of ultimate reality) In this post I'll briefly compare the Humanist with the biblical (creation) view, and show why the Christian view is superior.

By defining man as 'homo sapiens' (man the wise) Humanism goes wrong from the very start. The idea that the essence of man is reason, goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers. This basic notion has come down to us through the writings of Plato and Aristotle. The biblical view is that man is made in the image of God. [1.]

This definition is a disaster for a number of reasons. The best you can say about it is that it's a partial definition. The worst you can say about is that it's a meaningless abstraction. i.e. there is no such thing as reason (despite the frequently heard cry of atheists we must decide things only on the basis of reason). People reason, but there is no such entity as reason. (If there were Ludwig von Mises and Karl Marx would have come to the same conclusions about economics.)

This definition degrades man, and especially degrades people who are not intellectuals. It's based on a fallacious cosmology, where man partakes of some cosmic mind... shares a little of this thing called Reason that permeates the universe. It leads to the idea that all men lack is knowledge; that moral evil is simply the result of ignorance. It thus denies the biblical doctrine of of man's fallenness, of sin, and of man's rebellion against god. The biblical view of moral evil is that man is a selfish creature who desires to be god.

The biblical definition of man is a well rounded one that doesn't stress one aspect of personality over another. Unlike Greek philosophy which denies individuality, biblical teaching stresses individuality. (e.g. we will all stand before god as individuals.)

This idea was formulated by intellectuals, for the benefit of intellectuals. It's alive and well today in the idea the the most knowledgeable people are best fitted to rule over everyone else. (i.e. since they supposedly epitomize reason to the greatest degree) It was once a rationalization for slavery, and in our day it's a defense for the paternalistic welfare state. It's a fallacious and obsolete notion that needs to be abandoned.

Notes;
1. People who aren't familiar with Christianity sometimes ask, 'what is this image of God you talk about?'
The easiest and best way to answer this is to point to the Gospels, and the picture of Jesus that's presented. Jesus was the perfect man, and in him we see the image of God beautifully and fully expressed.
2. "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God..." (Col. 1 :15)
- Paul is speaking here of Jesus. As I understand Biblical theology, the first man Adam, was given the same 'nature' as the one possessed by Jesus. (What has happened to that original image over time is a matter of much controversy.)
3. 'False doctrines of human nature arise whenever thinkers try to define this heart or ego of man, since theoretical thought is limited to temporal things. Whenever man's essential nature is thus theoretically defined, one aspect of that nature is absolutized.' - The Christian philosophy of law, politics and the state - E.L. Hebden Taylor [p.283 in pdf]

Getting down to the real

The more complex a phenomenon is, the more difficult it is to find an adequate explanation for its existence.
A failure to find explanation at one 'level' indicates one has to dig deeper to find something that can adequately fit the data in question.

Quotes and comments;

A. "We can say that the undreamed of breakthrough in molecular biology has made the problem of the origin of life a greater riddle than it was before; we have acquired more and deeper problems." [1.]

- It seems to me that this wouldn't be true if reductionism (materialism) were correct. This 'deepening' Popper speaks of means we haven't got to the level true explanation resides at. To me this indicates that current explanations are likely wrong.

The failure of Materialism to account for biological phenomenon indicates that an adequate explanation must be sought in terms of the non-material.

Notes;
1. Alive; an enquiry into the origin and meaning of life - Magnus Verbrugge p.124
- "Popper marvels at the progress made in biochemistry, but that deals with how living beings stay alive, not with their origin."

The stuff of life

Carl Sagan once claimed that we could make the 'stuff of life' quite easily in the lab. [1.] He was playing word games. There is no such thing as the stuff of life, for the simple reason life is not a thing. Life is an abstraction taken from the study of living organisms.

As an example of how meaningless his comment is; it would be as accurate to go to the beach, point to the sand, and say, 'here is the stuff of computers'. (The materials of which something is made say little about the entity itself; sometimes hardly anything.)

Matter might be the 'stuff' of life, but only in the sense oil is the stuff of a painting. Expecting mere matter to transform itself into a living organism is like expecting a palette, a brush, and a canvas to transform themselves into a painting.

He deliberately mislead the untold millions who watched his famous TV series. The reductionist model he showed is a complete failure. Without intelligent design, mere matter is forever dead. (Chemicals unceasingly obeying the laws of physics.) Matter only 'comes alive' as the result of intelligence input.

Notes;
1. "The stuff of life, it turns out, can very easily be made..." [Quoted in 'Alive' by Magnus Verbrugge/p.227]
- the quote is from Sagan's book Cosmos.
2. Sagan was well aware that origin of life experiments couldn't produce the miracle he claimed they could.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster gets shot down

Looking at some book titles the other day I was staggered to see one titled 'The gospel of the flying spaghetti monster'. I dealt with this 'idea' quite some time ago. Here's the original post.

Many atheists in our day have taken to ridiculing the idea of a creator God, by way of inventing some very silly (fallacious) analogies. The most popular of these is probably the so called Flying Spaghetti Monster. (FSM) We're told this being created the world. People who doubt this are told to disprove it. "Since you can't disprove it, it must be real,'' we're told.
- the idea is that god is no more real than the FSM.

I'm astounded anyone thinks this is a good argument, or a meaningful analogy. The analogy has a fatal flaw; namely that hundreds of millions of people believe in God, while not a single person believes in the FSM. How anyone can think this is a good argument against theism I have no idea.

Why do people believe in a Creator? They do so on the basis of evidence and intuition. (No one believes in the FSM on the basis of evidence and intuition.) We also need to remember that atheists believe in a Materialist worldview on the basis of intuition. You can't strictly disprove either materialism or creation.
- If materialists want to deny the value of the theist's intuition (of God), they've at the same time, denied the value of their own intuition (that there is no God).

Notes;
1. There are many reasons this is a false analogy; for instance (as others have pointed out) Christians don't believe in God because His existence can't be disproved!
- e.g. Fearing the Spaghetti Monster - by Rachel Tullock
2. It's only intellectual buffoons like Dawkins who take these silly analogies seriously. No serious philosopher that I know of does.

Darwinism and the pretense of knowledge

Darwinism (evolutionary studies if you prefer) is a field that is dominated by a pretense of knowledge. The public is repeatedly offered fanciful stories and models in the place of true knowledge. No other field comes close to this reliance on pretended knowledge. Let's take a look at a recent example.

Quotes and comments;

A. Should humans do what comes naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
Nicholas Wade in the New York Times said, “We May Be Born With an Urge to Help.” He began with the question: “What is the essence of human nature?” Then he discussed evidence that infants have an inborn tendency to help.' [1.]

- Apparently it's the 'urge to help' that constitutes the essence of human nature.

How does he know that there is an 'essence' to human nature? On what basis does he expect to be able to determine it? Is this a meaningful question? Is it a question that can be answered? (The fact he's asking it is evidence man is not mere matter in motion... and in itself refutes materialism.)

What makes him think an animal can understand itself? (Don't you have to be outside of x to be able to understand x?)

If man does have an urge to help this provides evidence he's not merely matter in motion. I consider it mysticism to believe the urge to help can be a product of matter. (I've called the belief human qualities or spirit can be the product of matter,the new animsm; or the animist fallacy.)

Wade only imagines he knows the origin of human nature; in truth he has no idea. (If M2M evolution were true, then human nature had it's origin in planetary rock, or in the Big Bang.) But then Darwinism is all about pretending to have knowledge you don't possess. (I guess it's just a part of human nature.)

B. 'Others quoted say, “Humans clearly evolved the ability to detect inequities, control immediate desires, foresee the virtues of norm following and gain the personal, emotional rewards that come from seeing another punished.”

- Whenever you see the word 'clearly' (even if written by yours truly) ignore it. It's meaningless. The idea anyone sees human origins 'clearly' is a joke. We weren't there; all we have are tiny fragments of data to work with. Evolutionists have little or no idea what happened. Anyone who pretends he can see things clearly is talking nonsense. [Thomas Sowell, in his book on Intellectuals, says that the best educated among us are lucky to have 1 percent of all knowledge available.]

It's fallacious to claim humans evolved x ability. This is a meaningless statement. Evolution is an abstraction of various processes; not a thing, or a tool one uses.

Let's see; a blind random process somehow produced human beings who have the ability of foresight. Is that the story?
Evolution is all about this kind of magical production; where things reproduce not after their kinds, but after something that doesn't yet exist. And so inert matter produces living organisms; and the impersonal births the personal; the non-intelligent the intelligent and so on. And all this happens by random chemical reaction. This is more miraculous than anything in science fiction.

Humans 'evolved' all these abilities before they were human apparently. I wonder how that works. I guess they decided to produce all these new abilities by making copying mistakes. (Maybe they produced them by banging their heads on rocks.) Over and over the evolutionist claims that new organs and functions (even of a spectacular kind) can emerge from mutations. This isn't knowledge; it's pretense.

Notes;
1. What’s Natural for Humans? Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/01/2009
2. It's an academic game to pretend there is some one essence to man. (This has the benefit of allowing many people with differing ideas, to all get their snouts into the same academic trough.) Human nature is mulitform, and must not be reduced to one certain quality.
3. I said that no other field comes close to Darwinism when it comes to passing off pretense as knowledge... but I forgot about politics. I'm not sure which of the two depends more on a pretense of knowledge. It's too close to call.

Dolphin bubble rings

Something a little different today. I came across an amazing video I thought people might like to see. It features a dolphin making a bubble ring, and then seeming to play with it.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The video shows various dolphins creating rotating bubble rings which seem to hover in the water for a few seconds. The dolphins do this by first creating a water vortex with their dorsal fin. The ends of the vortex then come together into an invisible ring. Then the dolphin injects air from its blowhole into the spinning vortex. The vortex has enough energy to hold the ring from rising too quickly for play. Such a vortex bubble is about two feet across. [1.]

B. Video link is here; Snopes.com

C. ' However, dolphins might play with the vortex to create a smaller ring. Sometimes a dolphin will insert a smaller bubble ring inside a larger ring. They also create rings that flip vertically or even flip completely over. Sometimes a dolphin will create two bubble rings that collide and produce a third ring. The video shows one dolphin creating a large ring and watching it rise through the water. Just before the ring breaks the surface, the dolphin swims through the ring and leaps from the water. [1.]

- The dolphin in the video appears to be playing with the bubble ring. I got to thinking about this and wondering what was going on. Is it possible that these bubble rings originally served the purpose of catching various forms of sea life? Is there a connection with the 'rings' whales use to catch krill? I wonder if this was originally part of an 'instinctual' design for catching fish, and that through some mutation the dolphins have 'lost sight' of what the rings are for?

If this isn't the case, I wonder if the rings originally serve some other purpose that's been lost. (It may be that there is a purpose that we don't yet understand.)
- It may be that this is purely a form of play, or has some use in teaching the young various techniques that are useful.

Notes;
1. Dolphins at play - Creationmoments.org

The animist fallacy

Animism is usually defined as giving human attributes to nature, or matter. Today I want to look briefly at the related error called Reductionism.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'He [Monod] defines animism as a; ''projection into inanimate nature of man's awareness of the functioning of his own nervous system.'' [1.]

Monod calls it animism when man attributes human attributes to matter - but what about the reverse, when materialists claim that man has the attributes of matter? It seems to me that as an intellectual error, this is just as bad or worse.

- What should we call this? It's the dehumanizing of man at any rate. Reductionism is the other side of the animist coin as it were. (We might call this the animist fallacy.) If the animist exaggerated man, the materialist shrinks him. Where the animist saw man everywhere; the materialist sees him nowhere.

We see evidence of this fallacy everywhere. You can't escape it. The idea man is just matter is the key idea in current academic thinking. This ends up as the claim there is no mind; that the brain is all there is. It ends up being the claim that thought is just chemical reactions. The outcome of this kind of thinking is that man in the biblical sense completely disappears.

The key concept (or pretense) of materialism is that the human mind (spirit, soul) is merely the product of matter acted upon by physical forces; that there was no intelligence behind human intelligence. This is akin to attributing spirits to matter as the animists of old did.
- The biblical view is that man is the product not of matter, but of Intelligence.

M. Johnson [frfarer -at- gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Alive; an enquiry in to the Origin and Meaning of Life - Magnus Verbrugge/p.105
- I recommend this book highly. It's one of the best books on the subject of origins that I've read. (If not the best.)

Does Materialism have any scientific value?

- Darwinists like to disparage creationists by claiming that the idea of creation hasn't got any scientific value. I disagree with this claim, but in this brief post I want to turn the claim around, and ask whether the idea of materialism has any value in science.

We might ask the Darwinist whether the idea life 'emerged' from non-life is of any value in science. Does anyone use that supposition in their research? Does anyone expect this to happen? Does anyone expect to see complex, specified information spontaneously emerge without an intelligent agent behind it?

Is the idea something came from nothing of any value in scientific thinking and explanation? Do people expect to see this happen? Do they count on it happening? Do they look for this to happen? Do people explain entities and events by recourse to this explanation? (e.g. by claiming things probably came from nothing.)

Is the idea that complex information (genetic code) came from inert matter of any value in scientific thinking? Does anyone doing research expect complex information to come from mere matter? Does anyone expect specified information to come from non-intelligent sources?

Conclusion;
In my opinion, the concepts at the heart of Materialism have no scientific value. Not only that, they've led to all kinds of mistaken notions that have led scientists astray in their thinking. Not only doesn't materialism lead to anything positive, it leads to Reductionism, which is the major intellectual error of our day.

Notes;
1. To do research from a 'naturalistic' stance (i.e. as if God were not responsible for any activity one saw) isn't a specifically materialist idea. This methodology was one advocated by Christians and creationists. (The materialist can't act 'as if' God doesn't exist, if he doesn't in fact believe god exists.)
- The heart of materialism isn't the idea that God doesn't exist; the basic idea is rather that matter is all that exists. (This being the case matter must be eternal, and 'life' must come from non-life, and intelligence from non-intelligence, and the personal from the non-personal.)

Charles Darwin; the original Devil's chaplain

One hundred and fifty years after his death, Charles Darwin is still getting the white wash treatment by Christian liberals. He's presented as a sensitive christian (or deist) who was merely seeking the truth no matter where it led him. I consider this a gross distortion.

Quotes and comments;

A. "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel processes of nature,'' he [Darwin] wrote to a friend. [1.]
- He's referring to all the pollen that goes to waste, ants using ants as slaves, and various parasites, etc.

On what basis did Darwin know any process was wasteful? Wasn't he merely basing such a claim on his own ignorance?
A biblical view of creation expects that God knew what he was doing when he designed prolific processes in nature; and expects that these are (at least at times) necessary to the continuance of the species involved.

- On what basis is Darwin accusing the God of being clumsy and blundering? It would appear he based it on the bottomless depths of his own ignorance.

- On what basis (by what standard) does Darwin call the processes of nature cruel? Having rejected the bible he has no standard left but the chemical fumes circulating in his own skull. If man is merely matter in motion, he has no basis for calling anything cruel. For something to be cruel there must be an alternative. If something is necessary it can't be called cruel. What Darwin is saying is that God is responsible for needless suffering, and that he's either indifferent to it, or takes delight in it. The implicit idea is that He could have done things differently.
Once again we see the conflation of language; using the same terms for insects and human beings. This is either conscious slander (blasphemy) or it's deeply deluded thinking.

- We're no better in our day; as this confusion of language is rampant. (I see this as one of the major intellectual errors of our time.) People claim to be scientific, but they use words in a confused and stupid way; showing no precision of definition, nor care in use. To use the same words for insects and humans is to show yourself clueless. One cannot think rationally if one commits such a gross blunder in one's thinking. (Language is just one more divine gift that man has abused.)

- Darwin did write such a book of course; it was called the 'Origin of species'. (Later R. Dawkins a book which borrowed this phrase as a title.) It's my opinion that Darwin saw himself as the devil's chaplain. I assume he meant this to refer to someone who tries to discredit and defame the creator. He seems to be placing himself on the side of the Devil. (I don't see any other reasonable explanation.) Being a very proper Victorian he didn't of course believe in a real Devil, but was using the term as a symbol for those opposed to biblical Christianity. [2.]

- Few people know or admire Charles Darwin as well as Richard Dawkins. I don't think he has any doubt that Darwin was the original devil's chaplain, and that he's only carrying on in this 'proud' tradition.

Notes;
1. Darwin's God - Cornelius Hunter/page 10.
2. Hunter tells us that 'Paradise Lost' was one of Darwin's favorite books. I assume he was one of the people who (mistakenly) see the Devil as the hero of Milton's great epic.
- In this account the Devil rebels against God; later he tries to deceive Adam and Eve into joining his rebellion. I don't think it's stretching things to claim that Darwin was engaged in the same project. (The key Humanist idea has always been that true and important knowledge can only be gained by rejecting God and his word.) The idea was that man could only progress socially (evolve) by rejecting biblical Christianity.