I've been reading 'The Information' by James Gleick, and I want to make a few comments on a particular passage. (Fascinating book by the way.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'His colleague Sidney Dancoff suggested to him in 1950 that a chromosomal thread is “a linear coded tape of information;
"The entire thread constitutes a “message.” This message can be broken down into sub-units which may be called “paragraphs,” “words,” etc. [1.]
- There are no messages in inert matter. Where do messages come from then? How do you go from no messages to messages? Matter doesn't need messages; nor is it capable of producing them. Even granting it could produce them, why would it produce something it didn't need. Matter has no needs; no desires, no thoughts and no needs.
2. Message;
- c.1300, "communication transmitted via a messenger," from O.Fr. message, from M.L. missaticum, from L. missus, pp. of mittere "to send" (see mission). The Latin word is glossed in O.E. by ærende. Specific religious sense of "divinely inspired communication via a prophet" (1540s) led to transferred sense of "the broad meaning (of something)," first attested 1828. As a verb, "to send messages," attested from 1580s. To get the message "understand" is from 1964.
- What message could matter possibly 'want' to send? how could it have any message. Only living organisms have a need or desire to send a message. Among animals messages are mainly concerned with matters of life and death (and are instinctual). You only desire to send a message if you care about something; i.e. if you care about being alive. Since matter isn't alive it doesn't care about anything, and therefore has no message to send. Matter has no messages, and is incapable of formulating any, or sending any. Matter cannot be the source of messages in the universe.
3. Message;
a. A usually short communication transmitted by words, signals, or other means from one person, station, or group to another.
- Matter doesn't send messages because it has nothing to say; it has nothing to say because it has no personality. Impersonal entities don't send messages. Messages are evidence of personality.
b. The substance of such a communication; the point or points conveyed: gestured to a waiter, who got the message and brought the bill.
- matter doesn't communicate because it has nothing to say; it just is... and that being the case it is silent... or less than silent. It can only dream about being silent :=}
- all true communication is in code. All code must have an author.
c. 'A communication transmitted; a notice sent; information or opinion or advice communicated through a messenger or other agency: as, a verbal or written message; a telegraphic message.
- A message informs, it transfers knowledge. Only living organisms need knowledge. Matter doesn't need knowledge; isn't capable of it, and doesn't even know what it is. Matter doesn't get hungry, and doesn't get lonely. It doesn't need to send out an S.O.S.
The idea that one day the answer will be found is an expression of faith. (It obviously won't be found if it doesn't exist.) One wonders how long the search will go on. (As long as gov. funding holds out I guess.) Evolutionists are spending a lot of money trying to defend their materialist worldview; to at least make it somewhat plausible.
d. 'Any concept or information conveyed by the use of (usually written) symbols. - Wiki
- Mere matter knows nothing of symbols. Only human beings make conscious use of symbols. Symbols require intelligence, personality and necessity. The symbol use we see in DNA could not have had a source in inert matter. It's impossible. Even if it were capable of such a thing, why would matter use symbols? does it have something to hide? something 'ineffable' to express? does it have some message it needs to encode for transmission?
5. Symbol;
- the meaning "something which stands for something else" first recorded 1590 (in "Faerie Queene").
- What could matter stand for (other than itself)? Matter is what it is what it is. If all is matter, what else is there anyway? There are no symbols in a universe of mere matter. Not one.
a. 'Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.
b. 'Any character used to represent a quantity, an operation, a relation, or an abbreviation.
- the symbols used in DNA represent an operation i.e. the instructions that go into producing a protein. (In the realm of mere matter there are no symbols and no instructions. You only have instructions where you have a goal. As far as we know, the only source of goals are intelligent agents.)
The materialist must explain how you can have symbols before intelligence; symbols before persons.
The only way materialists can escape the dilemna posed by information is to equate information with its physical medium. This becomes the claim information is the same as brain cells, or ink on paper, or the same as hard drive it's configured onto. I see this as a ruse that attempts to escape the problem. To a strict materialist information cannot exist (ie. apart from its physical embodiment.) That information exists, is evidence to me that materialism is false.
Summary;
All the materialist can say to this is; ''well; it happened... so there. One day we'll know how this cosmic accident occurred but for now we must keep searching." If that satisfies some people (and apparently it does) what can I say. It doesn't satisfy me. I see the undirected 'emergence of 'life' from inert matter as inherently impossible. In my opinion (limited as it is) it's a desire to believe there is no creator god that prompts people to accept the m. view. If it wasn't for a desire m. be true, I don't think anyone would find the chance production of life forms a believable idea.
The space craft NASA (and Carl Sagan helped design) sent out into the universe to tell the whereabouts of human kind, can be seen as an S.O.S. sent out by materialists... seeking confirmation of their worldview. i.e. send us a message telling us we're right. Please.
We'll go out on a musical note; 'Message in a bottle' - The Police
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick/280
- I especially enjoyed the chapter on Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace. A whole book could be written on their unusual partnership.
2. Title refers to a song by Police [''Message in a bottle'']
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Science and sin; or, whatever happened to science?
A popular book of years ago asked 'whatever happened to sin?" Now we need to ask; whatever happened to science? Scientists have become the great usurpers; they no longer seem to think in terms of limits. They don't seem to know the difference between rocks and people. Reductionism has become imperialism and given us falsehood and misunderstanding. (Empiricism has turned into reductionism; method has become worldview.) The idea matter is all there is, isn't an empirical observation, it's a philosophical claim. The idea reductionism can explain all things isn't empirical or scientific, but philosophical.
Quotes and comments;
1. '...McMaster University researchers decided they would find “scientific solutions to sin.” Is their solution theological? Are they suggesting moral teachings, or offering psychological counseling? No; their working assumption is that all sin has molecular underpinnings.
"Most people are familiar with the seven deadly sins – pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed and sloth – but could there be molecular solutions for this daily struggle between good and evil?" By getting students to think outside the box, the aim was to come up with the best molecule and design for a drug, or remedy, that counteracts sin.' [1.]
- This is more academic game playing and silliness. What's their definition of sin? Does it exist? (some say no) How can we know? How can we know what it is? How can we know we're right? Is sin one thing or many things?
Why are materialists accepting the Catholic church's definition of sin? Seems a tad odd doesn't it?
The pretense behind this project is the idea all problems have technical solutions; that since all is matter in motion, all problems have material solutions. (ie. man as a bag of chemicals.)
2. Definition of sin;
1. 'A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. [modern]
2. Any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. (Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism.)
- If there is no creator god there can be no sin in the biblical sense. So why do materialists need a remedy for sin, when sin doesn't exist? There can be no sin unless there are moral absolutes. It makes no sense for materialists to speak of sin. Their worldview, if it were to be consistent, would not contain sin.
Sin depends on a certain freedom of will. So does man have free will? The materialist to be consistent must say no. Again, to talk of sin makes no sense. (This would be a big problem if materialists were to take philosophy and consistentcy seriously... but of course they don't.)
If man is just an animal (as the judge in the Dover case insisted) then it makes no sense to speak of sin. Do animals sin? Again, the materialist can't be consistent. He must speak out of all orifices at the same time... with each giving a diffeerent message.
The key question here is who defines what is sin? The PC agenda insists that only our secular professors have the right to define sin. They also have the right to have the State enforce their (finite, fallible, fallen) views on the general populace. Is that a scientific idea? Was it discovered with one of the new powerful microscopes? Was it discovered in a Hadron Collider experiment?
What's at stake here is a view of man. My concern is that the PC crowd will define what a 'proper' person is, and then the scientists will be given the job of producing this person. They might use drugs, or they might use genetic engineering. (PC man is coming to a town near you folks. In fact he might already arrived; e.g. 40 percent of people living in montreal are on anti-depressants... or so I remember reading.)
So what happens to science without a sense of sin? Materialism can't offer anything but an arbitrary definition, and science can't offer any definition at all. Scientific enterprise is thus dependent upon non-scientific sources for its moral and ethical directives and ideals. This means that at bottom science is a moral enterprise; that it must have a moral foundation. If man is just a bucket of chemicals in a meaningless universe, it makes no sense to insist he must behave in a certain way. Ethics and morality aren't scientific, and they never can be.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The science of sin; Creation/Evolution Headlines
Quotes and comments;
1. '...McMaster University researchers decided they would find “scientific solutions to sin.” Is their solution theological? Are they suggesting moral teachings, or offering psychological counseling? No; their working assumption is that all sin has molecular underpinnings.
"Most people are familiar with the seven deadly sins – pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed and sloth – but could there be molecular solutions for this daily struggle between good and evil?" By getting students to think outside the box, the aim was to come up with the best molecule and design for a drug, or remedy, that counteracts sin.' [1.]
- This is more academic game playing and silliness. What's their definition of sin? Does it exist? (some say no) How can we know? How can we know what it is? How can we know we're right? Is sin one thing or many things?
Why are materialists accepting the Catholic church's definition of sin? Seems a tad odd doesn't it?
The pretense behind this project is the idea all problems have technical solutions; that since all is matter in motion, all problems have material solutions. (ie. man as a bag of chemicals.)
2. Definition of sin;
1. 'A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. [modern]
2. Any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. (Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism.)
- If there is no creator god there can be no sin in the biblical sense. So why do materialists need a remedy for sin, when sin doesn't exist? There can be no sin unless there are moral absolutes. It makes no sense for materialists to speak of sin. Their worldview, if it were to be consistent, would not contain sin.
Sin depends on a certain freedom of will. So does man have free will? The materialist to be consistent must say no. Again, to talk of sin makes no sense. (This would be a big problem if materialists were to take philosophy and consistentcy seriously... but of course they don't.)
If man is just an animal (as the judge in the Dover case insisted) then it makes no sense to speak of sin. Do animals sin? Again, the materialist can't be consistent. He must speak out of all orifices at the same time... with each giving a diffeerent message.
The key question here is who defines what is sin? The PC agenda insists that only our secular professors have the right to define sin. They also have the right to have the State enforce their (finite, fallible, fallen) views on the general populace. Is that a scientific idea? Was it discovered with one of the new powerful microscopes? Was it discovered in a Hadron Collider experiment?
What's at stake here is a view of man. My concern is that the PC crowd will define what a 'proper' person is, and then the scientists will be given the job of producing this person. They might use drugs, or they might use genetic engineering. (PC man is coming to a town near you folks. In fact he might already arrived; e.g. 40 percent of people living in montreal are on anti-depressants... or so I remember reading.)
So what happens to science without a sense of sin? Materialism can't offer anything but an arbitrary definition, and science can't offer any definition at all. Scientific enterprise is thus dependent upon non-scientific sources for its moral and ethical directives and ideals. This means that at bottom science is a moral enterprise; that it must have a moral foundation. If man is just a bucket of chemicals in a meaningless universe, it makes no sense to insist he must behave in a certain way. Ethics and morality aren't scientific, and they never can be.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The science of sin; Creation/Evolution Headlines
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Knowledge, and the contradictions of Materialism
The irony of the assault on Christianity by the new atheists is that they have no epistemological foundation for their various critiques.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions that actually contradict his espoused presupposition - assumptions that comport only with the Christian worldview.' [1.]
- The materialist must use a Christian metaphysics to be able to reason, even to be able to voice criticisms of Christianity. He must assume he's capable of knowledge, that true knowledge exists, that truth exists, that good and bad, right and wrong exist, that evil exists, etc. Thus at the heart of the 'new atheism' is hypocrisy and contradiction.
For man to possess true knowledge, true knowledge must first exist. The materialist position makes true knowledge impossible. The reductionism inherent in materialism reduces all data into matter in motion. i.e. to physics. This destroys any possibility of rationality or meaning. [2.]
For man to possess true knowledge, he must be a creature capable of acquiring knowledge. The problem of the materialist is that (in terms of his own position) he is decidedly not an entity (organism) capable of knowledge. Materialists characterize man (homo sapien, sapien) in different (various) ways. For some man is just a meat machine; for some he's a bag of chemicals, he's mere matter; he's a 'souped up' (customized) ape; he's a robot being manipulated by his selfish genes; or he's an instinct driven animal.
It's difficult to deal with such a plethora of depictions. It's hard to summarize all these views. What they have in common is a rejection of the biblical portrait of man. Leaving such difficulties aside, we see that there isn't a basis for knowledge in any of these materialist views of man. This is the hopeless position of the materialist. He has no epistemological foundation for knowledge. When he claims to possess true knowelge he's not merely staning on a cloud, the cloud is floating in the void.
Remember this the next time Richard Dawkins gets up on his hind legs and starts spouting off against the 'evils' of Christianity - and gives you the 'truth' about origins. He makes the most foolish child look wise. Everything he says is contradicted by his own basic assumptions of who he is. If he's as wise as he imagines he is, why don't the various components of his worldview comport with each other?
e.g. He says man has no free will, but yet he encourages people to give up their belief in God and creation. This makes no sense. (Aren't ones views supposed to make sense?) Isn't science supposed to be about making sense? Is he so dull of wit (like an axe left for years under a tree) he sees no problem? Is it okay in science to ignore contradictions? Is it okay not to have any epistemological foundation for what you say?
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p. 12
2. 'Van Til asks what view of man, mind, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it." [p.6]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions that actually contradict his espoused presupposition - assumptions that comport only with the Christian worldview.' [1.]
- The materialist must use a Christian metaphysics to be able to reason, even to be able to voice criticisms of Christianity. He must assume he's capable of knowledge, that true knowledge exists, that truth exists, that good and bad, right and wrong exist, that evil exists, etc. Thus at the heart of the 'new atheism' is hypocrisy and contradiction.
For man to possess true knowledge, true knowledge must first exist. The materialist position makes true knowledge impossible. The reductionism inherent in materialism reduces all data into matter in motion. i.e. to physics. This destroys any possibility of rationality or meaning. [2.]
For man to possess true knowledge, he must be a creature capable of acquiring knowledge. The problem of the materialist is that (in terms of his own position) he is decidedly not an entity (organism) capable of knowledge. Materialists characterize man (homo sapien, sapien) in different (various) ways. For some man is just a meat machine; for some he's a bag of chemicals, he's mere matter; he's a 'souped up' (customized) ape; he's a robot being manipulated by his selfish genes; or he's an instinct driven animal.
It's difficult to deal with such a plethora of depictions. It's hard to summarize all these views. What they have in common is a rejection of the biblical portrait of man. Leaving such difficulties aside, we see that there isn't a basis for knowledge in any of these materialist views of man. This is the hopeless position of the materialist. He has no epistemological foundation for knowledge. When he claims to possess true knowelge he's not merely staning on a cloud, the cloud is floating in the void.
Remember this the next time Richard Dawkins gets up on his hind legs and starts spouting off against the 'evils' of Christianity - and gives you the 'truth' about origins. He makes the most foolish child look wise. Everything he says is contradicted by his own basic assumptions of who he is. If he's as wise as he imagines he is, why don't the various components of his worldview comport with each other?
e.g. He says man has no free will, but yet he encourages people to give up their belief in God and creation. This makes no sense. (Aren't ones views supposed to make sense?) Isn't science supposed to be about making sense? Is he so dull of wit (like an axe left for years under a tree) he sees no problem? Is it okay in science to ignore contradictions? Is it okay not to have any epistemological foundation for what you say?
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p. 12
2. 'Van Til asks what view of man, mind, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it." [p.6]
Friday, April 15, 2011
Naturalism and the undertaker; a tale of a hundred moons
I want to make a few comments that were provoked by reading a review of a book by John Lennox. (God's Undertaker; has science buried God?)
Quotes and comments;
1. ''The standard atheist or materialist position is that nature, the cosmos, or the physical world, is all there is. If nature is all there is (the philosophy of naturalism4), then science is the ultimate source of knowledge (a doctrine that has been called scientism). [1.]
- If nature is all there is, it should be possible to demonstrate how matter, plus physics, plus time can bring about the 'emergence' of living organisms and the eventual flowering of planet earth. The project so far, in my hopefully humble opinion, has been an utter failure. All we've been given is SF style speculation.... (without the humor or the drama.)
If naturalism were correct you would think people could point to some law that would bring living forms out of the void of inert matter... but I see no such law. Physical laws aren't creative; they're reactive. (We might be better off speaking of physical reactions rather than physical laws.) The reactions of matter aren't creative in the sense that they do the same thing every time; e.g. A+B = C (every time) The question materialists are struggling with is how do you get something new out of this? how do you get new answers (information) out of the same old equations? Aren't two and two always going to be four? I don't see any way matter can do any more than give you matter. Matter plus matter = matter. Matter times matter = matter. Matter divided by matter = matter.
Information isn't material, but yet it's what matter needs to create. The materialist is committed to the idea matter can provide information. I don't see it. Matter is a dull witted sort of fellow; he has no tricks up his sleeve... certainly nothing as grand as the specified complexity of genetic code.
2. ''He points out that “the statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science” (p. 42), which means that as a matter of logic, scientism has to be false in order to be true.
3. 'It was the deification of nature itself that had the most detrimental effects on science, and it was the Hebraic, biblical doctrine of creation that de-deified nature and made real science possible (pp. 47–50). But, in a sense, nature is being deified again by the claims that the natural world is all there is, and this is again destructive.'
- To say that 'nature' is all there is, is to make nature the most important thing in the universe. It's to make living organisms the most important things in the universe, and ultimately it's to make man the most important (smartest, most powerful, etc.) entity in the universe. Naturalism therefore is a glorification of man. It actually transforms man into God. (ie. since man is the most important being, his views and desires are the ultimate authority in the universe... and that sounds nearly identical to what scripture tells us of God.)
To say there is no god is to say man is god. (No wonder so many people find naturalism attractive.) There are profound theological implications of adopting naturalism as a worldview. It's the most arrogant view that it's possible for a human being to take. To say nature is all there is, is to say all that matters (in the universe) is what man thinks.
I see evidence that some people are troubled by the implications of naturalism in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Materialists are seeking an Other as a way of discouraging the hubris inherent in naturalism. (Man wants to be god, but yet finds the prospect troubling.) The biblical view is that man needs God a lot more than he needs aliens. (I don't think human kind needs aliens at all.) Even if aliens were found they could not be the 'significant Other' that man needs. Humanity doesn't need a friend (or a foe) it needs a source of Truth.
4. 'Why are we able to understand and study the universe? Why does mathematics relate to the physical world?
“It is very striking that the most abstract mathematical concepts that seem to be pure inventions of the human mind can turn out to be of vital importance for branches of science, with a vast range of practical applications” (p. 60).
- The biblical answer to this question (why mathematics relates to the physical universe) is basic; the universe was created with man in mind. The universe and man were made to be a perfect fit for each other. (I don't believe that man's physical size is an accident, nor do I think the size of man's mind is an accident. Man's mind is 'big' enough to deal with a universe as large as the one we find ourselves in. Man was made capable of dealing with universe. (I wish I could be as eloquent as my subject, but find myself babbling.) Man was created to have (to be capable of) dominion over the creation. That is why there is a fit between the mathematics man 'invents' and the physical universe.
5. ''The naturalist worldview can provide, in the words of Eugene Wigner, “no rational explanation” for the intelligibility of the universe (p. 60). But the Christian theist has an explanation: “the intelligibility of the universe is grounded in the nature of the ultimate rationality of God” (p. 61).
- The biblical view is that man can understand the universe because he was created to be able to understand it. i.e. he can't have dominion over it unless he understands it (or; the better he understands it the more capable he is of having godly dominion over it.) There is no explanation from Darwinists that adequately accounts for man's intellectual abilities. Evolutionists like to brag about how often E. correctly predicts things; but evolutionary theory does not predict human intelligence, (this is rarely admitted.) nor anything even approximating it.
Human genius is (from the E. point of view) entirely superfluous. It should not exist. If evolutionists were honest they'd admit that human beings should not exist. If E. (M2M) were correct human beings wouldn't exist, (and wouldn't be writing books claiming god is a delusion and that evolution created all things.) Only biblical creation can give an account for humankind's genius. People who reject the Genesis account are left with no explanation at all.
6. 'Lennox defends Paley’s basic design argument as philosophically sound. Hume had criticized design arguments, suggesting that the only way we could know the world was probably designed was by comparing it to other worlds, designed and not designed.
- I wonder what the atheist's homeboy would have to say if he were alive today. We can make the comparisons he only speculated about. If we compare earth to the other planets we know of we can only conclude it was designed. e.g. if we compare mars and earth which one looks more as if it were designed or 'terraformed' ? Which one looks as if there's been intelligent intervention at some point? (I'm not hot on this argument, but I think it's valid.)
7. 'The method of abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is appropriate, and is entirely untouched by Hume’s criticisms of design. “An argument that does explain a given effect is always better than one that does not” (p. 83). The question, then, is whether Darwinian evolution defeats the design argument by providing a better empirical explanation.
- The materialists have no plausible explanation for how a rock (planet earth) turned into a professor; how inert matter somehow transformed itself into living organisms, including man. All they have are speculations... none of which even convince materialists. The only answer I see is creation. The fact our professors don't like this answer doesn't mean it couldn't be true. There's no logical reason some kind of creation can't be true.
8. 'Lennox writes, the “sheer vehemence” of the defenders of Darwinism “fascinates me”. Why, he asks,
“ … is it only in connection with this area of intellectual endeavour that I have ever heard an eminent scientist (with a Nobel Prize to his name, no less) say in a public lecture in Oxford: ‘You must not question evolution.’” (p. 93).
- I find this intriguing myself. I don't understand it. I once accepted the materialist idea of an 'evolved' universe, but I never had any hatred of creation, creationists or problem with critiques of Darwinism.
'You must not question evolution'... being translated (into honest lingo) means 'you must not question materialism' or 'you must not say there's a god.' Why? Because he hates the very idea of God and creation. Why? Because he's a fallen creature in rebellion against his creator.
9. 'Lennox clearly explains the Shannon definition of information, and then explains the difference between Shannon information and semantic information (a crucial distinction that anti-design writers often fail to appreciate13). Lennox also explains the important concept of specified complexity. Information content that has both complexity (mathematically measurable) and specification (conforming to some meaning existing independently of itself) is inexplicable in terms of chance or natural law.
- Materialism can't explain how matter can stand for something other than itself; how it can be something other than itself; how the physical composition of X is the least important thing about it.
10. 'As he moves into a final chapter on the origin of information itself, Lennox notes that information itself is both invisible and immaterial (even though it is transmitted by physical means). “How could purely material causes account satisfactorily for the immaterial?” (p. 168). In short, the information in biology gives evidence of intelligent design.
- The problem materialists have is that they claim that only material things exist. i.e. they have no explanation for the immaterial, and thus no explanation for information. (Rather a big problem in the Age of Information :=}
11. 'In contrast, Genesis presents us with a Creator God who exists independently of the universe, but speaks into it. The gospel of John informs us that this Creator is the Word, the Word that “became human, to demonstrate fully that the ultimate truth behind the universe is personal” (p. 178).
- The key issue is this; is this a personal universe? or is it an impersonal universe? (If it's impersonal how did it create persons? Apologists for e. like to claim there are no questions can't answer; but I don't see any answers forthcoming for this vital question. An impersonal universe doesn't not predict persons.
Notes;
1. Grand undertaking; A review of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox - reviewed by Lael Weinberger
2. “Aunt Matilda’s cake” serves to explain the limits of the scientific enterprise (pp. 40–42). The finest natural scientists in the world could analyze the cake and tell us much about its chemical makeup, nutritional content, and protein structure, but they could not tell us the purpose for which Aunt Matilda made the cake. [above]
3. The likelihood that naturalism is correct is about the same as your waking up one night, looking out the window and seeing 100 moons in the sky.
- This is apparently what Steve Tibbetts did. Sample his music at YouTube; 100 Moons
Quotes and comments;
1. ''The standard atheist or materialist position is that nature, the cosmos, or the physical world, is all there is. If nature is all there is (the philosophy of naturalism4), then science is the ultimate source of knowledge (a doctrine that has been called scientism). [1.]
- If nature is all there is, it should be possible to demonstrate how matter, plus physics, plus time can bring about the 'emergence' of living organisms and the eventual flowering of planet earth. The project so far, in my hopefully humble opinion, has been an utter failure. All we've been given is SF style speculation.... (without the humor or the drama.)
If naturalism were correct you would think people could point to some law that would bring living forms out of the void of inert matter... but I see no such law. Physical laws aren't creative; they're reactive. (We might be better off speaking of physical reactions rather than physical laws.) The reactions of matter aren't creative in the sense that they do the same thing every time; e.g. A+B = C (every time) The question materialists are struggling with is how do you get something new out of this? how do you get new answers (information) out of the same old equations? Aren't two and two always going to be four? I don't see any way matter can do any more than give you matter. Matter plus matter = matter. Matter times matter = matter. Matter divided by matter = matter.
Information isn't material, but yet it's what matter needs to create. The materialist is committed to the idea matter can provide information. I don't see it. Matter is a dull witted sort of fellow; he has no tricks up his sleeve... certainly nothing as grand as the specified complexity of genetic code.
2. ''He points out that “the statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science” (p. 42), which means that as a matter of logic, scientism has to be false in order to be true.
3. 'It was the deification of nature itself that had the most detrimental effects on science, and it was the Hebraic, biblical doctrine of creation that de-deified nature and made real science possible (pp. 47–50). But, in a sense, nature is being deified again by the claims that the natural world is all there is, and this is again destructive.'
- To say that 'nature' is all there is, is to make nature the most important thing in the universe. It's to make living organisms the most important things in the universe, and ultimately it's to make man the most important (smartest, most powerful, etc.) entity in the universe. Naturalism therefore is a glorification of man. It actually transforms man into God. (ie. since man is the most important being, his views and desires are the ultimate authority in the universe... and that sounds nearly identical to what scripture tells us of God.)
To say there is no god is to say man is god. (No wonder so many people find naturalism attractive.) There are profound theological implications of adopting naturalism as a worldview. It's the most arrogant view that it's possible for a human being to take. To say nature is all there is, is to say all that matters (in the universe) is what man thinks.
I see evidence that some people are troubled by the implications of naturalism in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Materialists are seeking an Other as a way of discouraging the hubris inherent in naturalism. (Man wants to be god, but yet finds the prospect troubling.) The biblical view is that man needs God a lot more than he needs aliens. (I don't think human kind needs aliens at all.) Even if aliens were found they could not be the 'significant Other' that man needs. Humanity doesn't need a friend (or a foe) it needs a source of Truth.
4. 'Why are we able to understand and study the universe? Why does mathematics relate to the physical world?
“It is very striking that the most abstract mathematical concepts that seem to be pure inventions of the human mind can turn out to be of vital importance for branches of science, with a vast range of practical applications” (p. 60).
- The biblical answer to this question (why mathematics relates to the physical universe) is basic; the universe was created with man in mind. The universe and man were made to be a perfect fit for each other. (I don't believe that man's physical size is an accident, nor do I think the size of man's mind is an accident. Man's mind is 'big' enough to deal with a universe as large as the one we find ourselves in. Man was made capable of dealing with universe. (I wish I could be as eloquent as my subject, but find myself babbling.) Man was created to have (to be capable of) dominion over the creation. That is why there is a fit between the mathematics man 'invents' and the physical universe.
5. ''The naturalist worldview can provide, in the words of Eugene Wigner, “no rational explanation” for the intelligibility of the universe (p. 60). But the Christian theist has an explanation: “the intelligibility of the universe is grounded in the nature of the ultimate rationality of God” (p. 61).
- The biblical view is that man can understand the universe because he was created to be able to understand it. i.e. he can't have dominion over it unless he understands it (or; the better he understands it the more capable he is of having godly dominion over it.) There is no explanation from Darwinists that adequately accounts for man's intellectual abilities. Evolutionists like to brag about how often E. correctly predicts things; but evolutionary theory does not predict human intelligence, (this is rarely admitted.) nor anything even approximating it.
Human genius is (from the E. point of view) entirely superfluous. It should not exist. If evolutionists were honest they'd admit that human beings should not exist. If E. (M2M) were correct human beings wouldn't exist, (and wouldn't be writing books claiming god is a delusion and that evolution created all things.) Only biblical creation can give an account for humankind's genius. People who reject the Genesis account are left with no explanation at all.
6. 'Lennox defends Paley’s basic design argument as philosophically sound. Hume had criticized design arguments, suggesting that the only way we could know the world was probably designed was by comparing it to other worlds, designed and not designed.
- I wonder what the atheist's homeboy would have to say if he were alive today. We can make the comparisons he only speculated about. If we compare earth to the other planets we know of we can only conclude it was designed. e.g. if we compare mars and earth which one looks more as if it were designed or 'terraformed' ? Which one looks as if there's been intelligent intervention at some point? (I'm not hot on this argument, but I think it's valid.)
7. 'The method of abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is appropriate, and is entirely untouched by Hume’s criticisms of design. “An argument that does explain a given effect is always better than one that does not” (p. 83). The question, then, is whether Darwinian evolution defeats the design argument by providing a better empirical explanation.
- The materialists have no plausible explanation for how a rock (planet earth) turned into a professor; how inert matter somehow transformed itself into living organisms, including man. All they have are speculations... none of which even convince materialists. The only answer I see is creation. The fact our professors don't like this answer doesn't mean it couldn't be true. There's no logical reason some kind of creation can't be true.
8. 'Lennox writes, the “sheer vehemence” of the defenders of Darwinism “fascinates me”. Why, he asks,
“ … is it only in connection with this area of intellectual endeavour that I have ever heard an eminent scientist (with a Nobel Prize to his name, no less) say in a public lecture in Oxford: ‘You must not question evolution.’” (p. 93).
- I find this intriguing myself. I don't understand it. I once accepted the materialist idea of an 'evolved' universe, but I never had any hatred of creation, creationists or problem with critiques of Darwinism.
'You must not question evolution'... being translated (into honest lingo) means 'you must not question materialism' or 'you must not say there's a god.' Why? Because he hates the very idea of God and creation. Why? Because he's a fallen creature in rebellion against his creator.
9. 'Lennox clearly explains the Shannon definition of information, and then explains the difference between Shannon information and semantic information (a crucial distinction that anti-design writers often fail to appreciate13). Lennox also explains the important concept of specified complexity. Information content that has both complexity (mathematically measurable) and specification (conforming to some meaning existing independently of itself) is inexplicable in terms of chance or natural law.
- Materialism can't explain how matter can stand for something other than itself; how it can be something other than itself; how the physical composition of X is the least important thing about it.
10. 'As he moves into a final chapter on the origin of information itself, Lennox notes that information itself is both invisible and immaterial (even though it is transmitted by physical means). “How could purely material causes account satisfactorily for the immaterial?” (p. 168). In short, the information in biology gives evidence of intelligent design.
- The problem materialists have is that they claim that only material things exist. i.e. they have no explanation for the immaterial, and thus no explanation for information. (Rather a big problem in the Age of Information :=}
11. 'In contrast, Genesis presents us with a Creator God who exists independently of the universe, but speaks into it. The gospel of John informs us that this Creator is the Word, the Word that “became human, to demonstrate fully that the ultimate truth behind the universe is personal” (p. 178).
- The key issue is this; is this a personal universe? or is it an impersonal universe? (If it's impersonal how did it create persons? Apologists for e. like to claim there are no questions can't answer; but I don't see any answers forthcoming for this vital question. An impersonal universe doesn't not predict persons.
Notes;
1. Grand undertaking; A review of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox - reviewed by Lael Weinberger
2. “Aunt Matilda’s cake” serves to explain the limits of the scientific enterprise (pp. 40–42). The finest natural scientists in the world could analyze the cake and tell us much about its chemical makeup, nutritional content, and protein structure, but they could not tell us the purpose for which Aunt Matilda made the cake. [above]
3. The likelihood that naturalism is correct is about the same as your waking up one night, looking out the window and seeing 100 moons in the sky.
- This is apparently what Steve Tibbetts did. Sample his music at YouTube; 100 Moons
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
You've got to hide your love away
The Fermi paradox continues to befuddle people. Over the years many have suggested answers to this riddle. Today we look at one more attempt.
Quotes and comments;
1. Aliens who hide, survive;
'In order to explain the Fermi paradox, Kent [Adrian] turns to natural selection – and suggests that it may favour quiet aliens. [1.]
- If the grand theory of evolution (M2M) were true this 'real paradox' shouldn't exist. One wonders how evolution can be a fact while this paradox remains.
Is there any reason to believe these imagined aliens are any smarter or more prescient than humans. I mean we unintentionally revealed ourselves (with signals) long before Sagan did so intentionally. I would suspect any aliens would have done the same.
- can you use natural selection to 'analyze' imaginary creatures?
2. 'Has ET evolved to be discreet? An evolutionary tendency for inconspicuous aliens would solve a nagging paradox – and also suggest that we Earthlings should think twice before advertising our own existence. [1.]
- An evolutionary tendency? does that mean anything?
This doesn't explain why we don't see the aliens who don't hide. Don't all these cave cowering aliens have to be hiding from something?
Talking about an e. tendency in intelligent creatures doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We're told everyday that we're in the post evolutionary phase of our existence, that we need to take control of a random (natural) process and engineer our future e. in terms of rational goals. Wouldn't thinkers with the same views exist among the aliens?
If there really are billions of alien civilizations out there it seems quite a stretch to suggest they would all act the same way.
3. 'He argues that it's plausible that there is a competition for resources on a cosmic scale, driving an evolutionary process between alien species on different planets. Advanced species, for example, might want to exploit other planets for their own purposes.'
- I don't find that plausible at all. I don't see how advanced technology would require such a crude approach. surely in a universe as large as this there are an almost infinite number of unpopulated bodies to exploit if need be.
Summary;
I think this 'theory' is evidence of how badly the Fermi paradox bothers e. advocates. In my experience they take this far more seriously than any ID critique of evolution theory. They feel sure if E. theory is correct that there Has to be billions of aliens out there. If there isn't E. has been refuted. (Most, if not all Darwinists believe this... this is why they find countless ways to try and answer the paradox.
In the minds of most people; no aliens = creation. This is not so much a matter of irrefutable logic, but of feeling. i.e. until aliens are discovered (if they ever are) there will be doubt; doubt that evolution is true, doubt that creation isn't true.
With apologies to the Beatles, we'll end on a musical note.
"Here I stand head in hand
Turn my face to the wall
If they're gone I can't go on
Feelin' two-foot small." YouTube
Notes;
1. Exo-evolution: Aliens who hide, survive - Mark Buchanan - New Scientist
'As physicist Enrico Fermi argued in 1950, unless the evolution of life is unique to Earth, there must be many intelligent species out there. So why have they neither phoned home nor been detected by us?
"It's a real paradox," says Adrian Kent of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
2. You've got to hide your love away - Beatles
"Here I stand head in hand
Turn my face to the wall
If she's gone I can't go on
Feelin' two-foot small."
- in my scenario, the song gets sung by Seth Shostak.
Quotes and comments;
1. Aliens who hide, survive;
'In order to explain the Fermi paradox, Kent [Adrian] turns to natural selection – and suggests that it may favour quiet aliens. [1.]
- If the grand theory of evolution (M2M) were true this 'real paradox' shouldn't exist. One wonders how evolution can be a fact while this paradox remains.
Is there any reason to believe these imagined aliens are any smarter or more prescient than humans. I mean we unintentionally revealed ourselves (with signals) long before Sagan did so intentionally. I would suspect any aliens would have done the same.
- can you use natural selection to 'analyze' imaginary creatures?
2. 'Has ET evolved to be discreet? An evolutionary tendency for inconspicuous aliens would solve a nagging paradox – and also suggest that we Earthlings should think twice before advertising our own existence. [1.]
- An evolutionary tendency? does that mean anything?
This doesn't explain why we don't see the aliens who don't hide. Don't all these cave cowering aliens have to be hiding from something?
Talking about an e. tendency in intelligent creatures doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We're told everyday that we're in the post evolutionary phase of our existence, that we need to take control of a random (natural) process and engineer our future e. in terms of rational goals. Wouldn't thinkers with the same views exist among the aliens?
If there really are billions of alien civilizations out there it seems quite a stretch to suggest they would all act the same way.
3. 'He argues that it's plausible that there is a competition for resources on a cosmic scale, driving an evolutionary process between alien species on different planets. Advanced species, for example, might want to exploit other planets for their own purposes.'
- I don't find that plausible at all. I don't see how advanced technology would require such a crude approach. surely in a universe as large as this there are an almost infinite number of unpopulated bodies to exploit if need be.
Summary;
I think this 'theory' is evidence of how badly the Fermi paradox bothers e. advocates. In my experience they take this far more seriously than any ID critique of evolution theory. They feel sure if E. theory is correct that there Has to be billions of aliens out there. If there isn't E. has been refuted. (Most, if not all Darwinists believe this... this is why they find countless ways to try and answer the paradox.
In the minds of most people; no aliens = creation. This is not so much a matter of irrefutable logic, but of feeling. i.e. until aliens are discovered (if they ever are) there will be doubt; doubt that evolution is true, doubt that creation isn't true.
With apologies to the Beatles, we'll end on a musical note.
"Here I stand head in hand
Turn my face to the wall
If they're gone I can't go on
Feelin' two-foot small." YouTube
Notes;
1. Exo-evolution: Aliens who hide, survive - Mark Buchanan - New Scientist
'As physicist Enrico Fermi argued in 1950, unless the evolution of life is unique to Earth, there must be many intelligent species out there. So why have they neither phoned home nor been detected by us?
"It's a real paradox," says Adrian Kent of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
2. You've got to hide your love away - Beatles
"Here I stand head in hand
Turn my face to the wall
If she's gone I can't go on
Feelin' two-foot small."
- in my scenario, the song gets sung by Seth Shostak.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Science, the ant and wisdom
Now that more and more science types (e.g. Sam Harris) are offering science as a substitute for traditional wisdom it might do well to take a brief look at the subject.
Quotes and comments;
1. “What the world needs now? More wisdom,” is the headline of a press release from Concordia University reprinted by PhysOrg. While the headline is true, is science the one to tell anyone how to get it? Isn’t science concerned with natural laws and material processes?
Dolores Pushkar defined wisdom as “something that benefits society as a whole as well as the self.” [1.]
- This isn't very helpful. e.g. how do you know benefit means? what constitutes a true benefit as to an illusory one? How to weigh the benefits of society against the benefits to self. This defintion actually doesn't tell us a thing. e.g. how do you know what society is? how do you define it? how to you quantify it? is there such a thing as society?
Who says her definition is true? How would anyone know? If all is matter in motion, wisdom doesn't exist.
The Christian believes God's word is wisdom; true wisdom, and the basis of all other wisdom. ie. wisdom must conform (be consistent with) God's word.
"Go to the ant,'' the bible writer says, ''and it will teach you." You can indeed learn a lot from the ant; but you can't learn anything about how man should live, how he should treat others, how he should relate to his creator. (I'm not an expert on the ant, but I think that what you learn from the ant, is what it is to be an ant.) The 'wisdom' of the ant was pre-programmed into it at the creation. The 'wisdom' programmed into man was the ability to learn. Because the ant doesn't need to learn it has instincts, because man needs to learn he has an unquantifiable degree of freedom. [3.]
2. “No single definition of wisdom exists,” the press release admitted. [2]
- To be wise is to know the truth, to know the reality of a situation. Only God's wisdom can be universal; the wisdom of a human being is finite, partial and particular. The goal of the Christian isn't simply wisdom; it's far more important to be righteous. Scientific discoveries can help us to be wise, but they cannot help us to be righteous. (ie. know what is morally good.)
Science can help us to acquire wisdom in the sense it can help us to see more clearly; but it cannot tell us how we should live our lives. (Scientism is the claim there is no knowledge that can't be acquired by the scientific method; ie. the study of the material universe.) Science shouldn't be turned into a totalitarian project. There are things it does wonderfully well, and there are some things it cannot do at all. (The same is true of most things.)
Science is in the business of providing single defintions. If it can't give a single definition of X, it's likely X isn't a scientific subject. (ie. something that can be known by an investigation of the material world.) True laws of nature allow single definitions. Universals lend themselves to single deefinitions... while particulars do not. (People are different, they will never agree on what wisdom is.) The flux of human experience doesn't lend itself to single definitions. The more X changes over time the less able science is able to deal with it. In general science deals with things that aare unchangeable (or relatively so.)
3. Wisdom;
'The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.'
- The American Heritage definition is very different from the one this author gives. I'd like to know how you can tell us what wisdom is if you can't even define it. We don't learn where the definition she uses comes from. It sounds political; something pols would come up with; something self-serving.
4. "Wisdom and intelligence aren't the same thing," she points out, estimating that only 5 percent of the population can be described as truly wise and that advanced insight begins after adolescence as the brain matures.
- Want a bet these 5 percent are people who agree with her? This estimate is just plain silly. I imagine these would be people who know what is good for society and for the individual... as determined by ms. Pushkar. (You don't need a mature brain to be wise; certainly not to act wise. Anyone who knows children knows this.)
5. 'No single definition of wisdom exists, but hallmarks include knowledge, deep understanding of human nature, life contentment, empathy and the flexibility to see issues from others' perspectives.
- Well; that leaves Sam Harris out.
6. "Bitterness," Pushkar counters, "disqualifies a person from being considered as wise. It means they haven't learned any beneficial lessons from their experience."
- That leaves Richard Dawkins out. (Now, I don't know this for sure; but I get the feeling he thinks he's pretty wise.)
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Researchers Violate Separation of Science and State - Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/08/2011
'Wisdom science: To whom do you go for wisdom? A pastor, priest, or rabbi? A holy book? A trusted friend or academic? Never fear; science is here – science in the form of psychology.
2. What the world needs now? More wisdom PhysOrg
3. It's also true that man was made in the image of god; this means that when man has a heart for god he finds god's word and law to be true and admirable; when man rebels against God what was admirable becomes hateful to him. He still possesses the image of god within him, but now he finds it hateful. i.e. his conscience is a plague to him. If his rebellion continues long enough the still small voice of conscience within him at last becomes silent. (It's my guess that as long as the conscience is still alive men rage against god, but when the voice goes silent they stop raging against god and just 'quietly' go about their deeds. God (in this sense) has died, and there is no longer any reason to rage against him.
4. "Wisdom has an impact on how people cope in situations and whether they are more or less satisfied with life," explains Etezadi, a PhD student under Pushkar's direction.
- You need a PHD for this? And they claim we don't have enough scientists :=}
5. The science of wisdom! Sure.
Quotes and comments;
1. “What the world needs now? More wisdom,” is the headline of a press release from Concordia University reprinted by PhysOrg. While the headline is true, is science the one to tell anyone how to get it? Isn’t science concerned with natural laws and material processes?
Dolores Pushkar defined wisdom as “something that benefits society as a whole as well as the self.” [1.]
- This isn't very helpful. e.g. how do you know benefit means? what constitutes a true benefit as to an illusory one? How to weigh the benefits of society against the benefits to self. This defintion actually doesn't tell us a thing. e.g. how do you know what society is? how do you define it? how to you quantify it? is there such a thing as society?
Who says her definition is true? How would anyone know? If all is matter in motion, wisdom doesn't exist.
The Christian believes God's word is wisdom; true wisdom, and the basis of all other wisdom. ie. wisdom must conform (be consistent with) God's word.
"Go to the ant,'' the bible writer says, ''and it will teach you." You can indeed learn a lot from the ant; but you can't learn anything about how man should live, how he should treat others, how he should relate to his creator. (I'm not an expert on the ant, but I think that what you learn from the ant, is what it is to be an ant.) The 'wisdom' of the ant was pre-programmed into it at the creation. The 'wisdom' programmed into man was the ability to learn. Because the ant doesn't need to learn it has instincts, because man needs to learn he has an unquantifiable degree of freedom. [3.]
2. “No single definition of wisdom exists,” the press release admitted. [2]
- To be wise is to know the truth, to know the reality of a situation. Only God's wisdom can be universal; the wisdom of a human being is finite, partial and particular. The goal of the Christian isn't simply wisdom; it's far more important to be righteous. Scientific discoveries can help us to be wise, but they cannot help us to be righteous. (ie. know what is morally good.)
Science can help us to acquire wisdom in the sense it can help us to see more clearly; but it cannot tell us how we should live our lives. (Scientism is the claim there is no knowledge that can't be acquired by the scientific method; ie. the study of the material universe.) Science shouldn't be turned into a totalitarian project. There are things it does wonderfully well, and there are some things it cannot do at all. (The same is true of most things.)
Science is in the business of providing single defintions. If it can't give a single definition of X, it's likely X isn't a scientific subject. (ie. something that can be known by an investigation of the material world.) True laws of nature allow single definitions. Universals lend themselves to single deefinitions... while particulars do not. (People are different, they will never agree on what wisdom is.) The flux of human experience doesn't lend itself to single definitions. The more X changes over time the less able science is able to deal with it. In general science deals with things that aare unchangeable (or relatively so.)
3. Wisdom;
'The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.'
- The American Heritage definition is very different from the one this author gives. I'd like to know how you can tell us what wisdom is if you can't even define it. We don't learn where the definition she uses comes from. It sounds political; something pols would come up with; something self-serving.
4. "Wisdom and intelligence aren't the same thing," she points out, estimating that only 5 percent of the population can be described as truly wise and that advanced insight begins after adolescence as the brain matures.
- Want a bet these 5 percent are people who agree with her? This estimate is just plain silly. I imagine these would be people who know what is good for society and for the individual... as determined by ms. Pushkar. (You don't need a mature brain to be wise; certainly not to act wise. Anyone who knows children knows this.)
5. 'No single definition of wisdom exists, but hallmarks include knowledge, deep understanding of human nature, life contentment, empathy and the flexibility to see issues from others' perspectives.
- Well; that leaves Sam Harris out.
6. "Bitterness," Pushkar counters, "disqualifies a person from being considered as wise. It means they haven't learned any beneficial lessons from their experience."
- That leaves Richard Dawkins out. (Now, I don't know this for sure; but I get the feeling he thinks he's pretty wise.)
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Researchers Violate Separation of Science and State - Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/08/2011
'Wisdom science: To whom do you go for wisdom? A pastor, priest, or rabbi? A holy book? A trusted friend or academic? Never fear; science is here – science in the form of psychology.
2. What the world needs now? More wisdom PhysOrg
3. It's also true that man was made in the image of god; this means that when man has a heart for god he finds god's word and law to be true and admirable; when man rebels against God what was admirable becomes hateful to him. He still possesses the image of god within him, but now he finds it hateful. i.e. his conscience is a plague to him. If his rebellion continues long enough the still small voice of conscience within him at last becomes silent. (It's my guess that as long as the conscience is still alive men rage against god, but when the voice goes silent they stop raging against god and just 'quietly' go about their deeds. God (in this sense) has died, and there is no longer any reason to rage against him.
4. "Wisdom has an impact on how people cope in situations and whether they are more or less satisfied with life," explains Etezadi, a PhD student under Pushkar's direction.
- You need a PHD for this? And they claim we don't have enough scientists :=}
5. The science of wisdom! Sure.
Monday, April 11, 2011
A pitiless universe?
I want to make a few comments on an article called A Third Way, written by James A. Shapiro.
Quotes and comments;
'There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities. [1.]
- Don't anyone tell Eugenie Scott; this might ruin her whole day.
2. 'Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered.'
- Never considered because the Darwinists are afraid to back down. They've stated that evolution (M2M) is a fact so many times that they feel they can't back down. They're afraid it would make them look bad, and make the creationists look good.
Is that any way to do science? Is refusing to admit problems good scientific method? (The situation is getting more and more like the Stalinists defending Lysenko.) We see that the Darwinists are trying hard to ban any criticism of their theory. Is that any way to do science? Is banning criticism of a theory scientific? How do you get from all reality merely being matter in motion to banning criticisms of a theory? (That would amount to matter in motion banning matter in motion :=}
It's hard to imagine people like Rich Dawkins admitting that Darwinism is wrong... or even that it has any problems. His ego wouldn't stand the implosion. He's a man who needs to be right, and needs other people to be wrong. This is what fuels his anger, and his anger fuels his writing. If he had to admit he was wrong, all that anger would disappear.
3. 'After a discussion of technical advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution.
4. 'The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us revolutionary discoveries. Upsetting the oversimplified views of cellular organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated the field when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was formulated.
The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to the transition from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics.
- Neo-Darwinism (ND) was invented to deal with a radically more simple view of biology. In my opinion it can't begin to deal with the newly found complexity. It's an utterly outmoded theory. Darwinists try to soldier on by ignoring this complexity. If they say anything it's just to reiterate that somehow X evolved; we don't know how... but we will. ND will never be able to deal with information codes we see in living forms. Chance, mutation and selection will not do the job. Code isn't chemistry; chemicals react they don't create or send information.
6. 'Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.
- I think what he's saying (in simple form) is that things (functions) are too highly tuned to allow the blunt, heavy handed changes demanded by ND. ND would be like trying to fix a watch with a flame thrower.
7. 'First, then, all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation. Multiple levels of proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that inevitably occur during DNA replication.
- ND practically equates errors (and damage with) evolution. A major problem is that cells have various ways of preventing changes caused by errors. They seem designed to fight against the possibility of evolution. Another problem for ND is to explain how errors (loss of information) can lead to the creation of new organs and functions. I see no way for this to happen. This is the hope that a huge amount of errors will lead to something positive. I see no basis for such hope.
8. 'It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems.
- It's refreshing to see an evolutionist admit some of these things; things creationists have been talking about for decades. (No wonder he's an unknown to the media elite; no such heretic can be allowed a public platform.)
9. 'The second major lesson of molecular studies into the origins of genetic change is that all cells possess multiple biochemical agents for natural genetic engineering--processes that include the cutting and splicing of DNA molecules into new sequence arrangements.
We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change.'
10. '...cancer is now seen as a disease of the molecular information processing routines that ensure orderly cell growth and behavior in the healthy organism. Aberrant tumor cell growth appears to result from at least two kinds of malfunction: the loss of checkpoint controls, or the failure of decision-making routines that dictate programmed cell death (apoptosis) for cells in inappropriate surroundings.
- I don't know how any organism could survive without these systems in place. How then could they have evolved?
Earlier he referred to this system like this; 'One can characterize this surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making.'
- To go from inert matter to this kind of sophistication requires more than ND can give us. Matter doesn't work this way; chemicals aren't interested in repair or health. ND is no longer even plausible. How long it will take for the Dawkins crowd to admit I don't know, but I'm certain evolutionary theory is going to change radically.
What Dawkins said about the universe being without pity etc. is what is true about matter.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Since the universe means everything there is, it's not the universe that has no pity it's matter. (i.e. No one would argue that every creature on earth is pitiless.) So how do you get from pitiless, uncaring, indifferent matter to self repair functions? Since matter is indifferent (as Dawkins admits) why did it create living organisms? And where did it get the blueprints, the designs, the information from? We all know that matter doesn't contain true information... that's perhaps why it's indifferent.... that's no doubt why it has no purpose.
11. 'Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate.'
Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology.'
- I really don't know what he means by this. It's by no means true. I don't know of a creationist alive today doesn't admit to this. The fact we know so much more about living organisms (etc.) now than we did doesn't make them seem less miraculous, but more so. (One tires of hearing people make ignorant comments like this. Does the man even know a single creationist? or is he safely hiding in the anti-ID refuge of the campus. Maybe he should pop his head out and talk to a few folk.)
Summary;
I hate to contradict such an esteemed figure as Richard Dawkins, but life is th one thing we would not expect to see if all that existed was matter in motion.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. A Third Way - James A. Shapiro
Originally published in the February/ March 1997 issue of Boston Review
- to the best of my knowledge Shapiro is not a creationist.
2. 'In an important way, then, biology has returned to questions debated during the mechanism-vitalism controversy earlier this century.
- I don't know anything about this guy, but it sounds as if he might be some kind of a vitalist.
3. Life is the one thing we would not expect to see if all that existed was matter in motion.
4. Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is;
a. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reaction.
b. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining.
- what's missing in our view of the universe isn't some vitalistic life force, but information. (I suppose we could call information theory the new vitalism, but that might be confusing.)
5. 'But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.'
Quotes and comments;
'There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities. [1.]
- Don't anyone tell Eugenie Scott; this might ruin her whole day.
2. 'Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered.'
- Never considered because the Darwinists are afraid to back down. They've stated that evolution (M2M) is a fact so many times that they feel they can't back down. They're afraid it would make them look bad, and make the creationists look good.
Is that any way to do science? Is refusing to admit problems good scientific method? (The situation is getting more and more like the Stalinists defending Lysenko.) We see that the Darwinists are trying hard to ban any criticism of their theory. Is that any way to do science? Is banning criticism of a theory scientific? How do you get from all reality merely being matter in motion to banning criticisms of a theory? (That would amount to matter in motion banning matter in motion :=}
It's hard to imagine people like Rich Dawkins admitting that Darwinism is wrong... or even that it has any problems. His ego wouldn't stand the implosion. He's a man who needs to be right, and needs other people to be wrong. This is what fuels his anger, and his anger fuels his writing. If he had to admit he was wrong, all that anger would disappear.
3. 'After a discussion of technical advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution.
4. 'The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us revolutionary discoveries. Upsetting the oversimplified views of cellular organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated the field when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was formulated.
The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to the transition from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics.
- Neo-Darwinism (ND) was invented to deal with a radically more simple view of biology. In my opinion it can't begin to deal with the newly found complexity. It's an utterly outmoded theory. Darwinists try to soldier on by ignoring this complexity. If they say anything it's just to reiterate that somehow X evolved; we don't know how... but we will. ND will never be able to deal with information codes we see in living forms. Chance, mutation and selection will not do the job. Code isn't chemistry; chemicals react they don't create or send information.
6. 'Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.
- I think what he's saying (in simple form) is that things (functions) are too highly tuned to allow the blunt, heavy handed changes demanded by ND. ND would be like trying to fix a watch with a flame thrower.
7. 'First, then, all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation. Multiple levels of proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that inevitably occur during DNA replication.
- ND practically equates errors (and damage with) evolution. A major problem is that cells have various ways of preventing changes caused by errors. They seem designed to fight against the possibility of evolution. Another problem for ND is to explain how errors (loss of information) can lead to the creation of new organs and functions. I see no way for this to happen. This is the hope that a huge amount of errors will lead to something positive. I see no basis for such hope.
8. 'It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems.
- It's refreshing to see an evolutionist admit some of these things; things creationists have been talking about for decades. (No wonder he's an unknown to the media elite; no such heretic can be allowed a public platform.)
9. 'The second major lesson of molecular studies into the origins of genetic change is that all cells possess multiple biochemical agents for natural genetic engineering--processes that include the cutting and splicing of DNA molecules into new sequence arrangements.
We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change.'
10. '...cancer is now seen as a disease of the molecular information processing routines that ensure orderly cell growth and behavior in the healthy organism. Aberrant tumor cell growth appears to result from at least two kinds of malfunction: the loss of checkpoint controls, or the failure of decision-making routines that dictate programmed cell death (apoptosis) for cells in inappropriate surroundings.
- I don't know how any organism could survive without these systems in place. How then could they have evolved?
Earlier he referred to this system like this; 'One can characterize this surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making.'
- To go from inert matter to this kind of sophistication requires more than ND can give us. Matter doesn't work this way; chemicals aren't interested in repair or health. ND is no longer even plausible. How long it will take for the Dawkins crowd to admit I don't know, but I'm certain evolutionary theory is going to change radically.
What Dawkins said about the universe being without pity etc. is what is true about matter.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Since the universe means everything there is, it's not the universe that has no pity it's matter. (i.e. No one would argue that every creature on earth is pitiless.) So how do you get from pitiless, uncaring, indifferent matter to self repair functions? Since matter is indifferent (as Dawkins admits) why did it create living organisms? And where did it get the blueprints, the designs, the information from? We all know that matter doesn't contain true information... that's perhaps why it's indifferent.... that's no doubt why it has no purpose.
11. 'Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate.'
Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology.'
- I really don't know what he means by this. It's by no means true. I don't know of a creationist alive today doesn't admit to this. The fact we know so much more about living organisms (etc.) now than we did doesn't make them seem less miraculous, but more so. (One tires of hearing people make ignorant comments like this. Does the man even know a single creationist? or is he safely hiding in the anti-ID refuge of the campus. Maybe he should pop his head out and talk to a few folk.)
Summary;
I hate to contradict such an esteemed figure as Richard Dawkins, but life is th one thing we would not expect to see if all that existed was matter in motion.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. A Third Way - James A. Shapiro
Originally published in the February/ March 1997 issue of Boston Review
- to the best of my knowledge Shapiro is not a creationist.
2. 'In an important way, then, biology has returned to questions debated during the mechanism-vitalism controversy earlier this century.
- I don't know anything about this guy, but it sounds as if he might be some kind of a vitalist.
3. Life is the one thing we would not expect to see if all that existed was matter in motion.
4. Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is;
a. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reaction.
b. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining.
- what's missing in our view of the universe isn't some vitalistic life force, but information. (I suppose we could call information theory the new vitalism, but that might be confusing.)
5. 'But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)