We dare not make scripture subservient to science;
A (continuing) review of 'Seven Days that Divide the World' by John Lennox. I normally wouldn't read a defense of 'old earth' creation, but since I have respect and affection for Lennox I felt obligated to read it.
Quotes and comments;
Ch. 1. But does it move? a lesson from history
p. 15 '...what are we to think of astronomer N. Copernicus's suggestion that the earth moves when scripture seems to teach that the earth is immovably fixed in space?'
- Does scripture seem to 'teach' that the earth is fixed? I don't agree that it does; and reject the idea it 'teaches' this. (There's a difference between stating something in passing... e.g. in a psalm and teaching it as a fact... in a non-poetical setting.) Young earth creationists [YECS] point to verses that suggest the opposite. (e.g. "the earth hangeth upon nothing")
p. 15. He tells us that Aristotle taught a geocentric universe, but then he strangely references this claim by pointing to Job 38. This doesn't make sense to me.
Job 38:4. ''Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?''
- To refer to the earth's foundation doesn't make a claim about geocentricity or to the fact the earth is fixed (i.e. doesn't move) We might ask 'fixed on what?' The very idea makes no sense to me; as it would require the earth to be infinitely deep... to have no bottom. I'm not aware that anyone thought this. Many of the ancients believed the earth was circular in shape (i.e. shaped as a ball.)
p. 16. He points to psalm 93:1. ''Yes, the world is established, it shall never be moved.'' (apparently as evidence the bible makes false claims.)
What was the psalmist referring to however?
Let's quote the full verse... as only quoting a part of a verse can be confusing.
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.''
The psalmist is not making a scientific comment but referring to god's control of the universe he made, to his providential government.
'The thought seems abrupt here. It would appear as if the psalmist had been meditating on the dark things which occur in the world; the mysteries which abound; the things which seem irreconcilable with the idea that there is a just government over the world, and that suddenly the idea occurs, as a flash of lightning in a storm, that Yahweh reigns over all, and that all must be right. Amidst all these things God sits upon the throne; he orders all events; he sways his scepter over all; he orders all things according to his own will; he secures the accomplishment of his own purposes. - Barnes [2.]
- 'The Lord reigneth - He continues to govern every thing he has created; and he is every way qualified to govern all things, for he is clothed with majesty and with strength - dominion is his, and he has supreme power to exercise it; and he has so established the world that nothing can be driven out of order; all is ruled by him. Nature is his agent: or rather, nature is the sum of the laws of his government; the operations carried on by the Divine energy, and the effects resulting from those operations. - Clarke
- 'The Lord reigneth," or Jehovah reigns. Whatever opposition may arise, his throne is unmoved; he has reigned, does reign, and will reign for ever and ever. Whatever turmoil and rebellion there may be beneath the clouds, the eternal King sits above all in supreme serenity; and everywhere he is really Master, let his foes rage as they may. - Spurgeon
Lennox just ignores orthodox commentary on this verse, and distorts the plain meaning by claiming the author is 'teaching us' the earth is fixed in space. This is not even remotely close to what the author is saying!
p. 17. He quotes 1 Sam. 2:8
''for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."
- Again this is only part of the verse; the full verse reads;
''He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
- The author is not talking about geology or astronomy as surely everyone can see; he is talking about god's providential government of all things. He's talking about people not about planets.
e.g. ''1 Kings 16:2 "I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins.
The 'pillars' of the earth is not meant to be taken literally. (This of course is what the 'higher' critics of the bible claim... in their attempt to defame the bible.) If the earth was founded on pillars where were they? and what were they set upon, and what was that set upon. The whole image is little more than comical. (e.g. it's turtles all the way down)
What were pillars? they were gates of the city perhaps, they were the columns of royal palace perhaps. i.e. they were signs of power and authority. (The word pillars seem to come from something poured out. e.g. cement or molten metal in the manufacture of some item. We might speculate that the ancients knew of the molten source for much rock.... no doubt some had seen lava turn to rock.)
- 'The princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth, Zechariah 10:4, and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God.' - Gill
p. 16. He quotes psalm 104:5
''He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.''
Moved is not the best translation in my opinion; e.g. 'So that it shall not totter [NASB]
a. to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.
- I agree with the tone of the KJV that reads ''Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
i.e. the idea isn't what was done but who did it.
If we include the surrounding verses we see clearly that the psalmist is using poetic language; that he's employing figurate metaphor. e.g. v.3. ''and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.''
The psalmist isn't teaching students about geology or astronomy but declaring to them the greatness of the creator God. It's plain distortion to claim this is teaching people about geology... this isn't remotely the point. He's using figurative language to do his best to express the awesome power of God.
'This image Bishop Lowth thinks evidently taken from the tabernacle, which was so laid upon its foundations that nothing could move it, and the dispensation to which it was attached, till the end purposed by the secret counsel of God was accomplished: and thus the earth is established, till the end of its creation shall be fully answered; and then it and its works shall be burnt up. On the above ground, the stability of the sanctuary and the stability of the earth are sometimes mentioned in the same words. - Clarke
'Who laid the foundations of the earth,.... Or "founded the earth upon its bases" (l); which some take to be the waters, according to Psalm 24:2 - Gill
i.e. 1. ''The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it;
2. for he founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.
- this being a reference to Genesis 1.
Zecharia 10:4
''From Judah will come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
- The biblical authors were far (far) more interested in the One who made the earth than in the earth itself. Humanism is basically preferring the creature to the creator, and scientism is the sad result.
'That it should not be removed for ever: for though it may be shaken by earthquakes, yet not removed; nor will it be until the dissolution of all things, when it shall flee away before the face of the Judge, and a new earth shall succeed, Revelation 20:11. - Gill
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
'In a second decastich the poet speaks of the restraining of the lower waters and the establishing of the land standing out of the water. The suffix, referring back to ארץ, is intended to say that the earth hanging free in space (Job 26:7) has its internal supports.
p. 16. He quotes 1 Chron 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.''
- The author is making a contrast between men who will be shaken and moved (e.g. into apostasy) and God who will not be 'moved.' i.e. who will not become unjust or unrighteous or unholy. i.e. man changes but god changes not; this is the picture being drawn. There is no attempt to teach science here; the author isn't speaking about planetary geology but about God.
'Young's Literal Translation
''Be pained before Him, all the earth:
- We note that the word translated by some as 'moved' has the meaning of; to totter, shake, slip. There is no reference to not moving (travelling) through space.
If we go on to verse 31 we read; ''Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
The author is celebrating God's power and holiness not giving a lesson in cosmology. It is illegitimate to claim these verse are teaching that the earth is immovable or that it doesn't hang in space.
Job 26:7
''He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.''
Why doesn't Lennox quote this verse for us?
'Over the empty place - על־תהוּ ‛al-tôhû, "Upon emptiness, or nothing." That is, without anything to support it. The word used here (תהוּ tôhû) is one of those employed Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was wlthout form and void." But it seems here to mean emptiness, nothing. - Barnes
p. 17. '...the bible seemed equally clearly to say that the sun moved. [reference Eccl 1:5]
- Lennox is surely aware that the bible is written in phenomenological language. It was written to be spoken to the people, and so written in a phenomenological manner. (These arguements of his are as old as the hills... there's nothing modern about them.) They've all been dealt with numerous times; though he makes no mention of this.
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.''
- Solomon is speaking in these early verses about vanity, about the monotonous 'circularity' of life, the regularities of things. i.e. the fact things never change. e.g. the rain cycle, etc. The language is clearly meant to be figurative. Does anyone imagine S. really thought of the sun as a runner, panting and gasping as he makes his way to the finish line? Does anyone think he thought of the sun as a person? He's not talking about planetary bodies, but about human beings who seemingly labor in vain.
Young's literal translation;
"Also, the sun hath risen, and the sun hath gone in, and unto its place panting it is rising there.
- does anyone imagine S. thought the sun was panting?
p. 17. He tells us Martin Luther dismissed heliocentrism as false; but what does this tell us? Theologians are often wrong about things but this doesn't tell us anything about what the bible teaches.
He quotes ML as saying the bible tells us Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. (I confess I don't know what that incident involved; but suspect it's another case of figurative language... or perhaps phenomenological language.)
p. 18. 'Jean Calvin on the other hand clearly believed the earth was fixed.
- This is understandable as that's the way it looks; but no one is infallible, not even the best theologian the church has ever had. We need to stress here that Calvin acquired this opinion not from his study of scripture but from his 'naive' experience of the world.
p. 18. He refers to the 'Galileo incident' as an iconic example of the conflict between religion and science.
- I don't like his continued use of religion when he's talking about Christianity. i.e. there is no such thing as generic religion or generic science. e.g. if you mean C. say C. and if you mean materialist science say so... don't just say science. There is no such thing as generic science, as all 'scientific' models are built upon philosophical foundations. i.e. basic unproven, and unprovable assumptions. There is no such thing as science without presuppositional beliefs. All science is done in terms of a worldview.
p 19. 'But now we need to face an important question; why do Christians accept this new interpretation, and not still insist on a 'literal' understanding of the ''pillars of the earth?'' Is it really because we have made scripture subservient to science?'
- This is the main (if not only) point of the chapter. Lennox is responding to the charge that old earth creationists like himself have made 'science' the ultimate authority in the world and have replaced the bible with the textbook. I find the chapter unconvincing. There's nothing original in it, and he ignores ye creationists and their responses to all these old charges.
This is a poor argument. He says why don't Christians still insist on a literal understanding of the pillars of the earth. I've pointed out (at length) that this was figurative language; it was never meant to be taken 'literally' by its author/s. It's absurd to say we should insist on a literal interpretation of a figurative statement! That makes no sense to me John.
This example means nothing, and demonstrates nothing. He's given us a misinterpretation of the text and then set it up as a straw man to knock down.
Summary;
- In chapter 1. Lennox is unconvincing in his attempt to persuade us we should abandon the bible as a source of truth about the universe we live in and about our history on the earth.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Seven days that divide the world - John Lennox
2. Commentary quote come from bible.cc
3. - Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?
- an article discussing figurative language in the bible, and pertinent to this review. e.g.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
'In both cases we are dealing with a situation that is charged with poetic indications (pillars that can be "astonished"?) and we are obliged not to read things too literally.
4. Basic Literary Forms I
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basic-literary-forms-i/
- 'Phenomenological Language. Much of the Bible comes to us with language that describes the way things appear to the naked eye. The language used is descriptive of the ways things look from our perspective and is not necessarily asserting precise scientific fact. An example of this is the description of the sun rising. Unless we understand the use of phenomenological language, we might think that the Bible teaches that the earth is at the center of the universe. When we realize that the Bible describes things according to appearance, we see that the Bible is not really saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Rather, it is merely saying that the sun rises because, to our naked eye, it looks like the sun moves and the earth does not. This use of language is still current. The meterologist gives us the time of sunrise, but nobody assumes he is teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. - Ligonier ministries
5. It's revealing that he must go back 400 years for his example instead of engaging with modern day creationists.
- As far as I can see he only makes reference to YEC once; and that's a short book that presents 3 different creationist models, one of which is YE. i.e. 'The Genesis Debate; three views on the days of creation' Neither J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall who defend the YE view is a scientist. Lennox just ignores all the PHDs who accept a YE model. (He also mentions an essay written by two YECs; Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. Of the two only Nelson could be called a scientist.)
- Lennox seems to quote (and reference) himself more than anyone else. Is he unaware of the hundreds of books published by YE creationists? He mainly appears to be shadow boxing with himself.
6. For those people who think a YE position can't be rationally defended they might want to reference an article called 'Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- the article makes brief points and then provides a link to one or more articles that defend that particular reason in detail. I've gone through the whole list (including reading all the articles linked to) and I find the case for a YE convincing. (I don't think you can prove a young earth, but you can give a good case why it could be true, or even is likely to be true. I don't believe you can prove an old earth either, but I imagine Lennox would disagree.)
- As far as I can see Lennox never tells us what research he did in preparation for the book, but I see little evidence he did much. (In his defense he's not much interested in speaking to YE creationists but is directing his arguments to people who find a YE position absurd. On p.12 he talks about a woman who thought the Genesis account of creation was a 'very silly story'.) I personally haven't seen much (if any) evidence people reject Christianity because of Genesis 1. (This isn't the Bible's account of things, as it claims men reject God because of natural depravity and rebellion.)
Friday, March 2, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Origins debate is getting boring
While the origins debate is a hobby of mine (that doesn't feel like the right word) I confess that's what's a lot more interesting than ideas about evolution or creation are the living organisms themselves. I think we get too wrapped up in metaphysical debate and ignore the wonders of the world; that's where the real amazing action is going on.
Forget the stories Darwinists invent to account for the development their theory requires and concentrate on the biosphere itself. Speculations about creation, evolution, design, diversity, etc. are incredibly boring when set beside the miracles of creation. The data are a thousand times more interesting (astounding, amazing) than the 'theories' about it. I'll even admit that Darwinists are correct when they say that (generic) creation is a boring idea... though I don't think it's as boring and vapid as cosmic evolution.
Take a look at the cell; it's about a billion times more interesting than any story about how it came to exist. A book on birds is a thousand, thousand times more interesting than a story on how they came to find themselves in the sky. An Octopus is a million times more interesting than a textbook account of its supposed evolution.
Most people would do far better to concentrate on living, breathing organisms than fossils and dead bones. Cosmic evolution and cosmic creation are more of a philosophical and religious issue than they are about science, than they are about the world we are fortunate enough to live in, (on, and about).
I believe the discoveries being made, and the ones that we all assume will be made, will eventually speak for themselves, that the evidence for intelligent design will one day be so overpowering that no one will deny it. Creation scientists speak about being a tiny minority who are matched up against an overwhelming opponent, but the ironic thing is that while most scientists consider themselves evolutionists (M2M) every real discovery they make about biological creatures is stockpiling evidence for creation. With every passing year the evidence for creation mounts. Every day atheists, skeptics and agnostics are out working to prove the truth of creation whether they know it or not.
My new year's resolution is to take a year off from brothers Dembski and Dawkins and concentrate on studying animals, birds, insects, fishes and all the other kinds of living miracles that populate this spinning world. I'm going to let the debaters go on without me. (That at least is the plan.)
Notes;
1. I find it (sadly) amusing to hear atheists dismiss the doctrine of creation as ''all you're saying is that God did it.'' That's all? That's all? There's something very wrong with a human heart that sees nothing important in the fact God made the created order we call the world. What I assume they mean is that this 'tidbit' of information has no relevance to the grand experiment called science, or to how I conduct myself in my research. i.e. it has no cash value if you prefer.
I believe this is a serious mistake in thinking, as I believe the truth of creation has an enormous implication for scientific studies, formulations, theories, ideas, etc. I believe the idea of c.e. has led scientists horribly astray and led them to go down a thousand wrong roads, looking for things they will never find, theorizing about things that never existed, formulating hundreds of mistaken theories, leading to endless confusion.
People who imagine the 'idea' of a creator is meaningless to science can only imagine this because they have convinced themselves there is no creator. They're spiritually blind.
The creation itself (not creationists) will destroy all materialist stories about Origins. The best defense of creation are the biological organisms we are blessed with. No in depth study of them can lead to anything but awe. Materialism is not only stupid and impossible, it's a horrific (and sinful) insult to the creator. It's man at his worst. Materialism is the greatest joke on earth.
The best antidote to the idiocy of materialism is a study of (not science, but) creation. Unless a person has been so deadened by a life of sin, the study of creation will provoke awe within them for their Creator.
2. An example of the above;
'Farming and gardening are said by evolutionists to be very advanced activities. They say that primitive humans did not do these things, and that gardening developed only recently in human history. But if there is a Creator, we would expect that He would have taught many kinds of creatures to care for plants or even trees.
Guess what? There are even ants who garden. There is a particular type of fierce ant that cares for the South American bull's horn acacia tree. While the ants don't need the tree for their survival, they do eat portions of it. But they never eat enough to cause damage to the tree. In fact, the ants protect their tree - they snip off vines or other growth that comes too close to the tree, maintaining plenty of growing room for their tree. The ants are aggressive enough to keep other insects or even birds or larger animals away from their tree.
In studying this amazing relationship, researchers have removed the ants from some of these trees. Within two to fifteen months the tree is dead. Without the ants' care, animals eat off all the leaves and surrounding plants overrun it.
- Paul Bartz; Ants who garden
3. YouTube video; Bull-Horn Acacia Ants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_tdhxMs90
4. 'Computer scientists have learned that before one single image is ever sent to your brain, each cell of your retina must perform a huge number of calculations. Each second every cell of your retina performs 10 billion calculations! And you thought you couldn't do math!
What's more, these are not simple calculations. Dr. Joseph Calkins, professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University, estimates that the fastest computer in the world would require many hundreds of hours to do what the cells in your retina do each second!
- The eye's computer - by Paul Bartz
I ask you; what's more interesting; this new discovery or the claim by Richard (blind man) Dawkins that the eye is badly designed?
Forget the stories Darwinists invent to account for the development their theory requires and concentrate on the biosphere itself. Speculations about creation, evolution, design, diversity, etc. are incredibly boring when set beside the miracles of creation. The data are a thousand times more interesting (astounding, amazing) than the 'theories' about it. I'll even admit that Darwinists are correct when they say that (generic) creation is a boring idea... though I don't think it's as boring and vapid as cosmic evolution.
Take a look at the cell; it's about a billion times more interesting than any story about how it came to exist. A book on birds is a thousand, thousand times more interesting than a story on how they came to find themselves in the sky. An Octopus is a million times more interesting than a textbook account of its supposed evolution.
Most people would do far better to concentrate on living, breathing organisms than fossils and dead bones. Cosmic evolution and cosmic creation are more of a philosophical and religious issue than they are about science, than they are about the world we are fortunate enough to live in, (on, and about).
I believe the discoveries being made, and the ones that we all assume will be made, will eventually speak for themselves, that the evidence for intelligent design will one day be so overpowering that no one will deny it. Creation scientists speak about being a tiny minority who are matched up against an overwhelming opponent, but the ironic thing is that while most scientists consider themselves evolutionists (M2M) every real discovery they make about biological creatures is stockpiling evidence for creation. With every passing year the evidence for creation mounts. Every day atheists, skeptics and agnostics are out working to prove the truth of creation whether they know it or not.
My new year's resolution is to take a year off from brothers Dembski and Dawkins and concentrate on studying animals, birds, insects, fishes and all the other kinds of living miracles that populate this spinning world. I'm going to let the debaters go on without me. (That at least is the plan.)
Notes;
1. I find it (sadly) amusing to hear atheists dismiss the doctrine of creation as ''all you're saying is that God did it.'' That's all? That's all? There's something very wrong with a human heart that sees nothing important in the fact God made the created order we call the world. What I assume they mean is that this 'tidbit' of information has no relevance to the grand experiment called science, or to how I conduct myself in my research. i.e. it has no cash value if you prefer.
I believe this is a serious mistake in thinking, as I believe the truth of creation has an enormous implication for scientific studies, formulations, theories, ideas, etc. I believe the idea of c.e. has led scientists horribly astray and led them to go down a thousand wrong roads, looking for things they will never find, theorizing about things that never existed, formulating hundreds of mistaken theories, leading to endless confusion.
People who imagine the 'idea' of a creator is meaningless to science can only imagine this because they have convinced themselves there is no creator. They're spiritually blind.
The creation itself (not creationists) will destroy all materialist stories about Origins. The best defense of creation are the biological organisms we are blessed with. No in depth study of them can lead to anything but awe. Materialism is not only stupid and impossible, it's a horrific (and sinful) insult to the creator. It's man at his worst. Materialism is the greatest joke on earth.
The best antidote to the idiocy of materialism is a study of (not science, but) creation. Unless a person has been so deadened by a life of sin, the study of creation will provoke awe within them for their Creator.
2. An example of the above;
'Farming and gardening are said by evolutionists to be very advanced activities. They say that primitive humans did not do these things, and that gardening developed only recently in human history. But if there is a Creator, we would expect that He would have taught many kinds of creatures to care for plants or even trees.
Guess what? There are even ants who garden. There is a particular type of fierce ant that cares for the South American bull's horn acacia tree. While the ants don't need the tree for their survival, they do eat portions of it. But they never eat enough to cause damage to the tree. In fact, the ants protect their tree - they snip off vines or other growth that comes too close to the tree, maintaining plenty of growing room for their tree. The ants are aggressive enough to keep other insects or even birds or larger animals away from their tree.
In studying this amazing relationship, researchers have removed the ants from some of these trees. Within two to fifteen months the tree is dead. Without the ants' care, animals eat off all the leaves and surrounding plants overrun it.
- Paul Bartz; Ants who garden
3. YouTube video; Bull-Horn Acacia Ants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_tdhxMs90
4. 'Computer scientists have learned that before one single image is ever sent to your brain, each cell of your retina must perform a huge number of calculations. Each second every cell of your retina performs 10 billion calculations! And you thought you couldn't do math!
What's more, these are not simple calculations. Dr. Joseph Calkins, professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University, estimates that the fastest computer in the world would require many hundreds of hours to do what the cells in your retina do each second!
- The eye's computer - by Paul Bartz
I ask you; what's more interesting; this new discovery or the claim by Richard (blind man) Dawkins that the eye is badly designed?
Friday, January 13, 2012
Faith, prayer and creation
If people ask me why I believe in a Creator I point to the wonders of the living forms that populate this planet.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Lord, You have created the heights of the mountains and the depths of the seas. Where You have commanded creatures to live, there they live to Your glory.' [1.]
- The fact seals and other marine creatures can live in the harsh conditions of the Antarctica gives glory to the Creator by showing us His great wisdom, creativity and imagination. The capabilities of animals give glory to their creator. As vast as the oceans are, the wisdom of God is many times more deep and more vast. Even the deepest ocean has a bottom, but the wisdom of God has no bottom, has no limit.
In the living (moving, breathing) creatures of the earth we see an expression of God's power, and of his ability to do all that he has promised in his Word.
The living creatures on this planet are an unceasing hymn of praise to the wisdom of our Creator.
Notes;
1. The Greatest Deep-Sea Divers - Paul Bartz
2. 'Even though it's a mammal and not a fish, the Weddell seal of the Antarctic is one of the greatest deep-sea divers in the world. Weighing up to 1,200 pounds, the Weddell seal can cruise under water for up to 70 minutes. It is able to reach depths as great as 1,600 feet.' [above]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Lord, You have created the heights of the mountains and the depths of the seas. Where You have commanded creatures to live, there they live to Your glory.' [1.]
- The fact seals and other marine creatures can live in the harsh conditions of the Antarctica gives glory to the Creator by showing us His great wisdom, creativity and imagination. The capabilities of animals give glory to their creator. As vast as the oceans are, the wisdom of God is many times more deep and more vast. Even the deepest ocean has a bottom, but the wisdom of God has no bottom, has no limit.
In the living (moving, breathing) creatures of the earth we see an expression of God's power, and of his ability to do all that he has promised in his Word.
The living creatures on this planet are an unceasing hymn of praise to the wisdom of our Creator.
Notes;
1. The Greatest Deep-Sea Divers - Paul Bartz
2. 'Even though it's a mammal and not a fish, the Weddell seal of the Antarctic is one of the greatest deep-sea divers in the world. Weighing up to 1,200 pounds, the Weddell seal can cruise under water for up to 70 minutes. It is able to reach depths as great as 1,600 feet.' [above]
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The seperation of science and religion
On the pressing need to rename the planets.
- Atheists often complain (it's their forte) of religionists getting involved in science. They scold all concerned that such interference ought not to be, and I don't know how any real writer (or real philosopher, or real human being for that matter) can disagree. We need to rid science of all vestiges of religion, and I think a good place to start is with the planets.
When you look at the planets (thru a telescope or in a book) you see the heavy hand of religion has been instrumental in naming them. The outrage here (and I think all real commentators feel it) is that they've all been named after various gods. This ought not to be. Can any rational person deny that they ought to be renamed. Just go through the list and see if you don't feel a rising anger in you.
The infamy of the situation;
We have Mercury (the winged god) Venus (the god of love) Mars (the god of war) Jupiter (the god of the sky) Saturn (the god of agriculture) Neptune (god of the sea) and so on. What real scientist can fail to be incensed at such a list.
What can we do? I suggest we rename the planets. My suggestion (and I think it's a good one) is to rename them after cartoon characters from Walt Disney films. My preliminary list goes as following; starting nearest the sun and heading out. (I leave it to others more worthy than myself to decide whether or not we need to rename the sun, as I believe star is another word for a god. We might in fact rename the sun Walt.) So we could start with renaming Mercury as Donald, Venus as Daffy, Mars as Goofy, Jupiter as Daisy, and so on.
I'm sure there's going to be a fierce debate over whether or not we need to rename Pluto as I think some people mistakenly believe it already is named after a Disney character. My research (I spent at least 10 seconds on Wikipedia) tells me this is not the case and it actually refers to one of the important gods of religion. [1.]
Certainly I have no desire to force my suggestions on the greater community (though I think they're going to be hard to beat). What I think we need is an international conference of all the leading scientists (the real kind) and have them decide by vote on this very important subject.
Addendum;
After writing this post someone suggested to me (no, it wasn't Walt) that perhaps we could use this great renaming event as a way of getting children and teenagers interested in science; and a way to do that would be to hand the naming process over to them. In this scenario they would vote on the Disney characters they wanted planets named after. Since I don't have a degree in the philosophy of childhood education I don't feel able to comment on this suggestion and leave it to my more qualified colleagues to decide.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The name Pluto was proposed by Venetia Burney (1918–2009), an eleven-year-old schoolgirl in Oxford, England. Venetia was interested in classical mythology as well as astronomy, and considered the name, a name for the god of the underworld, appropriate for such a presumably dark and cold world. - Wikipedia
- Atheists often complain (it's their forte) of religionists getting involved in science. They scold all concerned that such interference ought not to be, and I don't know how any real writer (or real philosopher, or real human being for that matter) can disagree. We need to rid science of all vestiges of religion, and I think a good place to start is with the planets.
When you look at the planets (thru a telescope or in a book) you see the heavy hand of religion has been instrumental in naming them. The outrage here (and I think all real commentators feel it) is that they've all been named after various gods. This ought not to be. Can any rational person deny that they ought to be renamed. Just go through the list and see if you don't feel a rising anger in you.
The infamy of the situation;
We have Mercury (the winged god) Venus (the god of love) Mars (the god of war) Jupiter (the god of the sky) Saturn (the god of agriculture) Neptune (god of the sea) and so on. What real scientist can fail to be incensed at such a list.
What can we do? I suggest we rename the planets. My suggestion (and I think it's a good one) is to rename them after cartoon characters from Walt Disney films. My preliminary list goes as following; starting nearest the sun and heading out. (I leave it to others more worthy than myself to decide whether or not we need to rename the sun, as I believe star is another word for a god. We might in fact rename the sun Walt.) So we could start with renaming Mercury as Donald, Venus as Daffy, Mars as Goofy, Jupiter as Daisy, and so on.
I'm sure there's going to be a fierce debate over whether or not we need to rename Pluto as I think some people mistakenly believe it already is named after a Disney character. My research (I spent at least 10 seconds on Wikipedia) tells me this is not the case and it actually refers to one of the important gods of religion. [1.]
Certainly I have no desire to force my suggestions on the greater community (though I think they're going to be hard to beat). What I think we need is an international conference of all the leading scientists (the real kind) and have them decide by vote on this very important subject.
Addendum;
After writing this post someone suggested to me (no, it wasn't Walt) that perhaps we could use this great renaming event as a way of getting children and teenagers interested in science; and a way to do that would be to hand the naming process over to them. In this scenario they would vote on the Disney characters they wanted planets named after. Since I don't have a degree in the philosophy of childhood education I don't feel able to comment on this suggestion and leave it to my more qualified colleagues to decide.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The name Pluto was proposed by Venetia Burney (1918–2009), an eleven-year-old schoolgirl in Oxford, England. Venetia was interested in classical mythology as well as astronomy, and considered the name, a name for the god of the underworld, appropriate for such a presumably dark and cold world. - Wikipedia
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Naturalism and Creation; a review of 'The Wedge of Truth' by Philip Johnson
The Origins debate isn't really about creation or evolution so much as it's about theism vs materialism. One person who realizes this better than most is Philip Johnson. I want to comment on a few passages from his book.
Quotes and comments;
1. Speaking of Naturalism Johnson writes, "Under any of those names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. It God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them. In consequences, all the creating had to be done by the laws and the particles, which is to say by some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity." [1.]
- In his book he asks the reader to learn to ask good questions; so let's try a few. We need to ask what particles and physical laws can or do create. Can particles acting in terms of physical law actually create anything, or anything complex? We need to ask what we mean by create.
Create;
- late 14c., from L. creatus, pp. of creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," related to crescere "arise, grow"
- Can particles really 'bring forth' anything other than particles? I see no reason to believe they can beget life. (Create seems originally have been a word closely or even solely connected with birth. e.g. to create an infant)
1. 'To produce through artistic or imaginative effort
- I see no reason to believe particles are capable of artistic or imaginative effort. (Although a look at some modern art makes one wonder of human beings are capable of artistic effort :=}
2. 'To bring into being; cause to exist; specifically, to produce without the prior existence of the material used, or of other things like the thing produced; produce out of nothing.
3. 'To make or produce from crude or scattered materials; bring into form; embody: as, Peter the Great created the city of St. Petersburg; Palladio created a new style of architecture.
- To create a city is a banal accomplishment compared to the creation of a cell. E.s like to talk about some imagined 'primitive' cell; but it's our cities that are more legitimately called primitive, not cells. (If I look at a cell I don't see any neon advertising for 24 hr. a day sex shops, gambling casinos or hamburger joints.)
I see no evidence undirected chemical reactions can produce anything genuinely new; or to keep on producing genuinely new products. Chemicals beget chemicals not machines; physical laws cause cars to rust not to be manufactured.
(Compared to the riches of the biosphere, the 'begats' of chemistry produce a boring book indeed.)
4. 'To design, invest with a new form, shape, &c.
- Inert matter is unable to transcend itself; it takes intelligence and imagination to transcend the material realm, and it takes intentionality and purpose to want to do this. (A rock has no more desire to transcend or transform itself than a dictator does; rocks are the greatest couch potatoes on the planet... unlike teenagers they don't even dream of doing anything or of changing; they have less passion than the elderly on their death beds.)
The big problem for the materialist, as he tries to persuade people of his philosophy, is the task of explaining the genuinely new entity in the world. A cell is a million times more complex than a computer, but no one would even pretend to explain a computer without a reference to intelligence. He has an unsolvable puzzle on his hands, and it's one he's created for himself.
The main engine of progressive e. given in our textbooks has, for a long time, been mutations. This creates big problems for the e. theorist as mutations are negative in their actions. The question then is, 'how can mistakes create something new and of value?' To illustrate the conundrum I offer the following analogy;
Imagine we have a statue, and imagine we've grown tired of it and want a new one. We're cheap or we have no money so we say to a sculptor, turn this old block of stone (the statue) into a new one. If the sculptor agrees, the new statue he produces will of necessity be smaller than the old one. Each time we engage in this procedure the statue will be smaller. In the end we will end up with a grain of sand.
A few creationists have recently begun saying that mutations can indeed create new information. If this is so (and it might be) it's only because this possibility was designed into the genetic blueprint. i.e. if cosmic evolution were true, it wouldn't be possible for mutations to add anything new. It's only because organisms were created that such a possibility even exists. I see no way this could have happened by accident.
5. Creature;
- late 13c., "anything created," also "living being," from O.Fr. creature (Mod.Fr. créature), from L.L. creatura "thing created," from creatus, pp. of L. creare "create" (see create). Meaning "anything that ministers to man's comforts" (1610s), after I Tim. iv 4
- Create originally referred to either living organisms or to things made by living organisms; especially man himself.
The word create originally referred mainly to procreation. Since particles can't reproduce they can't procreate. If all you have are particles you have a dead world, an eternally dead world.
6. Creator;
- c.1300, "Supreme Being," from Anglo-Fr. creatour, O.Fr. creator (12c., academic and liturgical, alongside popular creere, Mod.Fr. créateur), from L. creator "creator, author, founder," from creatus (see create). Translated in O.E. as scieppend (from verb scieppan; see shape). Not generally capitalized until KJV. General meaning "one who creates" is from 1570s.
- It's my view that create originates in testimony of a creator God. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,'' may have been the first words ever spoken (by an angel) to Adam; the first words he ever heard.) I find that giving to particles the divine power of creation is the most absurd notion man has ever spoken. Chemical evolution denies the necessity of intelligence, imagination and personhood. (A strange view to be championed by intelligent, imaginative, persons.)
I find the idea of a mindless, accidental creation both impossible and nauseating. I reject it with the disdain I would treat a mud pie. I find it loathsome that human beings will not honor their creator, or at the very least acknowledge his work. To deny the Creator is akin to claiming a troop of monkeys wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
Chemical evolution is a counterfeit creation story. It's so preposterous it's akin to claiming Arthur's sword was a natural product, a mere product of rock formation, as natural as the rock it was embedded in.
Chemical evolution requires that particles possess God's wisdom; that they possess the information needed to create all the original living forms. As far as I know we don't have microscopes powerful enough to detect this, but as Darwinists like to say, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until we do. (Skeptics will want to know where particles got this information content, but it's clear that it was produced with the big bang, when normal physical laws didn't exist and so this was possible. It's true that we don't yet know how this happened, but there's a general feeling among scientists that in a matter of 5-10 years we'll know.)
2. ‘Science’, in the strong sense, deals with repeatable events under precisely controlled conditions, and these testable results are to be valid across time, location and experimenter. Although all conclusions should still be treated as tentative descriptive models, even incomplete understanding can lead to advances in technology and medicine. Christians certainly approve of this form of knowledge acquisition, when applied in beneficial ways not contrary to God’s commandments. However, scientific methodologies available to interpret historical and geological events are, unfortunately, far less reliable. [2.]
- The game people like Sam Harris etc. play is to conflate real (hard) science with such philosophical speculations as neo-Darwinism. Darwinism is to science what plastic fruit is to a full course meal. It's little more than comical to say creationists are against science. This is like saying one is against food because one doesn't like Haggis. (Darwinism is to science what a carriage drawn to the moon by encapsulated dew drops is to a space ship. It's an imaginative story yes; but it won't get you anywhere.)
This is a far more important question than many realize. It's not just a philosophical 'game' as it were. Take a mouse; do its 'thoughts' reflect an external reality? How well do they reflect reality? how much of reality do they reflect? We can ask similar questions of human beings.
Is there any way for us to know if our thoughts reflect an external reality? Is there a way to know how well they do this? It's absurd to speak of facts if we can't answer these questions.
How well do the 'thoughts' (let's be liberal) of a goldfish reflect the reality of the ocean? Should we rely on it for information about the seas? Would it be a good guide for navigation? We might imagine that it thinks it knows all there is to know about water. It might even consider itself an
expert.
3. ‘By information I mean a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.’ [3.]
- We find no information in particles, but perhaps this is only because we haven't looked hard enough. We see no guidelines on how to construct a biological organism. (Perhaps someone forgot to write the manual, or forgot to enclose it.) We can say that particles were created by an intelligent agent, but they're not intelligent in and of themselves. They don't need intelligence and (thus?) don't have it. They're the blind leading the blind
Particles don't require these functions and so don't have them. It's important to stress that in the story of cosmic evolution these mechanisms at one time didn't exist. (For me this is all the data I need to reject Materialism.) The claim of chemical evolution is as believable to me as the claim one could safely drive across the country in a car without brakes or a steering wheel.
People who deny creation are like those who deny their own faces in a mirror. One hardly finds their protestations believable.
4. "When a mutation makes a bacterium resistant to antibiotics, for example, it does so by disabling its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. There is a net loss of information and of fitness in a general sense, but there is a gain in fitness in specific toxin-filled environments.'' [4.]
- Human beings themselves provide far better evidence for a source of creation than do bacteria. Why do men look into bacteria when they should be looking into their own hearts? Is there something they're trying to escape?
Human society in our day (as I suppose it is in every day) is an especially toxin filled environment... and some people do indeed do well in it. e.g. Darwinists. We might think of Humanism as a loss of information.
5. ‘One convenient way of expressing this distinction is to say that the standard examples of micro-evolution are all of horizontal evolution, while the grand creative process should be called vertical evolution." [5.]
- The materialist is of all people the one with the least amount of hope for his position; he's literally climbing the walls in search of an answer. Chemical evolution is a riddle invented by the few to torture the many. A far more rational approach is agnosticism.
6. "Whereas the drafting committee had defined science as the human activity of seeking natural explanations, the board substituted that "science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us." [6.]
- The idea 'science' is about seeking natural' explanations is founded on the pretense that there's only one kind of explanation; that there's only way level of explanation. We need to stress that there are many ways of defining terms (especially important terms). This can be seen by a brief look at any dictionary. The attempt to define science in a single sentence (or entry) is a comical enterprise at best.
Modernists (especially of the atheist sort) have attempted to define science in a way it never was in the past. They've tried to narrow the definition until it becomes equal to materialism and reductionism. i.e. they've applied reductionism to the idea of science as they apply it to everything else. They want to make science a guild or closed shop; where only card carrying atheists may apply. (It's perhaps unnecessary to point out how undemocratic this agenda is.)
Science;
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind.
Webster 1828
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge. - W/1913
7. Johnson says that students should have the right to judge the merits of Neo-Darwinism;
‘Is the "evolution" that biologists observe merely a matter of variation within preexisting species or types, or is it a genuine creative process that over time can produce new complex organs and new kinds of organism?’ [7.] (p. 72).
* - I find it odd that students are encouraged to decide for themselves what is morally right and wrong, to decide whether or not to have sex or even an abortion, but they're not allowed to decide whether or not Darwinism can fully account for the life forms on the planet. This is akin to telling a small child what shoes he must wear but letting himself decide whether or not to cross the hiway. Again we see an anti-democratic spirit at work in the schools when it comes to the creation/evolution debate.
8. ‘For example, Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie urged scientists on university admissions committees to notify the Kansas governor and the state board of education that "in light of the newly lowered education standards in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state in the future will have to be considered very carefully"’ (p. 80).
- The worst bullies in the educational system are not students, but teachers, professors and outside agitators like Rennie. This is a vile and utterly uncivil threat levelled at students and their parents.
Why would anyone think Rennie is going to be honest about the Origins debate?
8. "Gould takes for granted that all such questions are within the magisterium of science." [8.]’ (p. 98).
- I find comical the idea science (i.e. scientists) will define what is and isn't religion. This is like a thief defining property rights, or a child telling his parents what his rights are and what their duties are.
9. "For example, Richard Dawkins commented that science is compatible with religion if the latter means only feelings of awe at the wonders of the universe or the fundamental laws of physics." [9.]
- I have to admit I rarely find myself in awe over the fundamental laws of physics; no doubt this is a personal failing. The atheist wants to restrict religion to feeling; but wouldn't that make his own feelings religious? What then of his feeling that there is no God; wouldn't that qualify as a religious feeling?
10. "They [the Darwinists] realise that it is safer to allow God a shadowy existence in human subjectivity than to run the risk that this very threatening presence will burst into objective reality. That is when we hear the standard vague reassurances that "many people believe in both God and evolution", or that "science does not say that God does not exist", or that "science and religion are separate realms."’ [10.]
- It's my view that science and religion are as separate as body and soul. I believe that as man is a single unit so is truth; as man has various aspects so has investigation into human experience. As man is in the universe, so is science within Revelation (or creation).
Realm;
1. A community or territory over which a sovereign rules; a kingdom.
- Ideally the sciences are provinces within the kingdom of God. In general terms we can say that 'science' and 'religion' are provinces within the same kingdom. To see a conflict between science and religion is taking an atomistic approach when a holistic approach is what's called for.
If Materialism is consistently applied it leads to the death of man, and how strange it is that men should construct philosophies that lead to their own extinction. What happened to the will to survive? Did it begin to die off with the advent of Darwinism? Maybe people on the whole aren't all that thrilled with being apes (in drag). That some few are is certainly true; but then again we do have some funny parades now days don't we? I wouldn't take seriously anything purple people eaters have to say about Origins.
Extremophile enthusiasm for Darwinism is something I don't understand; even though I accepted Evolution (M2M) when I was a teenager and maintained it all through my twenties. Why some people are so fanatic about it is beyond me, as it seems a horrid nightmare of an idea.
If there were no self how could there be facts? Aren't facts conclusions made by persons? ie. by selves. If there is no self who (what?) is it that believes x to be true? Do particles believe things? Don't you have to think to believe?
If we reduce everything down to the particle level how do we answer the question of reality; what then becomes of reality? What then is it? Is there any reality at the particle level? I can't imagine there is, but it would be a funny kind of reality if there were. If we reduce everything to the particle level we lose rationality, and words are only noise and thoughts only chemical reactions. To take everything to the particle level is to live beneath our station, it's to live without any awareness of who we are.
If we take things down (way, way down) to the particle level who is there to say what is reality. Reality is, after all, a pronouncement made by a person. If there are no selves there is therefore no reality. (The Biblical creationist of course believes that it is the Creator who makes the pronouncement of what reality is.)
If there are no selves who is going to compose the agreement (consensus) needed to create the facts of reality? If there is no self there is no reality and if there is no reality there are no facts. This unfortunately means for the materialist that nothing he says can be true.
11. "The irony is that eliminative materialism itself is fatal to science, since it implies that even the scientists are not really conscious and that their boasted rationality is really rationalization." [11.]
- The atheist claims he doesn't need a metaphysical basis for his opinions, but this is like a man saying he has no need of a place to stand, or a fish saying it has no need of water, or a bird saying it has no need of sky. It's true that the atheist is able to speak about morality and ethics (etc.) but his words have no necessary connection to reality. e.g. you might succeed in selling a gullible person a non-existent island, but the sale doesn't make the island appear.
The materialist is in the position of trying to live on a non-existent island. (The only way he can survive is to catch a ride from a creationist with a boat.)
Ideas not rooted in reality will necessarily disappear. The rejection of intelligent creation is an idea that cannot and will not stand the test of time. Materialism is a non-existent island floating in the void.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer at Gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson; 2000 p.13
2. p. 37
3. p. 42
4. p.46
5. p.128
6. p.68
7. p.72
8. p.98
9. p.100
10. p.141
11. p.119
12. Note; Would it be correct to say that what the Materialist calls emergence the creationist calls transcendence?
Transcend;
1. To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe):
- The Materialist claims that intelligence is an emergent quality, while the creationist claims it's a transcendent entity. i.e. it's independent of matter because it's not the produce of matter but of information (that is embedded in matter). I think that what we call 'life' is also a transcendent entity; that all life forms are not merely 'emergent' phenomenon but transcendent realities.
13. I need to note that I borrowed these quotations from a review by Royal Truman. I read the book some years ago but didn't make any notes. Since he's a writer I respect I read the review even though I'd read the book.
Quotes and comments;
1. Speaking of Naturalism Johnson writes, "Under any of those names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. It God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them. In consequences, all the creating had to be done by the laws and the particles, which is to say by some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity." [1.]
- In his book he asks the reader to learn to ask good questions; so let's try a few. We need to ask what particles and physical laws can or do create. Can particles acting in terms of physical law actually create anything, or anything complex? We need to ask what we mean by create.
Create;
- late 14c., from L. creatus, pp. of creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," related to crescere "arise, grow"
- Can particles really 'bring forth' anything other than particles? I see no reason to believe they can beget life. (Create seems originally have been a word closely or even solely connected with birth. e.g. to create an infant)
1. 'To produce through artistic or imaginative effort
- I see no reason to believe particles are capable of artistic or imaginative effort. (Although a look at some modern art makes one wonder of human beings are capable of artistic effort :=}
2. 'To bring into being; cause to exist; specifically, to produce without the prior existence of the material used, or of other things like the thing produced; produce out of nothing.
3. 'To make or produce from crude or scattered materials; bring into form; embody: as, Peter the Great created the city of St. Petersburg; Palladio created a new style of architecture.
- To create a city is a banal accomplishment compared to the creation of a cell. E.s like to talk about some imagined 'primitive' cell; but it's our cities that are more legitimately called primitive, not cells. (If I look at a cell I don't see any neon advertising for 24 hr. a day sex shops, gambling casinos or hamburger joints.)
I see no evidence undirected chemical reactions can produce anything genuinely new; or to keep on producing genuinely new products. Chemicals beget chemicals not machines; physical laws cause cars to rust not to be manufactured.
(Compared to the riches of the biosphere, the 'begats' of chemistry produce a boring book indeed.)
4. 'To design, invest with a new form, shape, &c.
- Inert matter is unable to transcend itself; it takes intelligence and imagination to transcend the material realm, and it takes intentionality and purpose to want to do this. (A rock has no more desire to transcend or transform itself than a dictator does; rocks are the greatest couch potatoes on the planet... unlike teenagers they don't even dream of doing anything or of changing; they have less passion than the elderly on their death beds.)
The big problem for the materialist, as he tries to persuade people of his philosophy, is the task of explaining the genuinely new entity in the world. A cell is a million times more complex than a computer, but no one would even pretend to explain a computer without a reference to intelligence. He has an unsolvable puzzle on his hands, and it's one he's created for himself.
The main engine of progressive e. given in our textbooks has, for a long time, been mutations. This creates big problems for the e. theorist as mutations are negative in their actions. The question then is, 'how can mistakes create something new and of value?' To illustrate the conundrum I offer the following analogy;
Imagine we have a statue, and imagine we've grown tired of it and want a new one. We're cheap or we have no money so we say to a sculptor, turn this old block of stone (the statue) into a new one. If the sculptor agrees, the new statue he produces will of necessity be smaller than the old one. Each time we engage in this procedure the statue will be smaller. In the end we will end up with a grain of sand.
A few creationists have recently begun saying that mutations can indeed create new information. If this is so (and it might be) it's only because this possibility was designed into the genetic blueprint. i.e. if cosmic evolution were true, it wouldn't be possible for mutations to add anything new. It's only because organisms were created that such a possibility even exists. I see no way this could have happened by accident.
5. Creature;
- late 13c., "anything created," also "living being," from O.Fr. creature (Mod.Fr. créature), from L.L. creatura "thing created," from creatus, pp. of L. creare "create" (see create). Meaning "anything that ministers to man's comforts" (1610s), after I Tim. iv 4
- Create originally referred to either living organisms or to things made by living organisms; especially man himself.
The word create originally referred mainly to procreation. Since particles can't reproduce they can't procreate. If all you have are particles you have a dead world, an eternally dead world.
6. Creator;
- c.1300, "Supreme Being," from Anglo-Fr. creatour, O.Fr. creator (12c., academic and liturgical, alongside popular creere, Mod.Fr. créateur), from L. creator "creator, author, founder," from creatus (see create). Translated in O.E. as scieppend (from verb scieppan; see shape). Not generally capitalized until KJV. General meaning "one who creates" is from 1570s.
- It's my view that create originates in testimony of a creator God. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,'' may have been the first words ever spoken (by an angel) to Adam; the first words he ever heard.) I find that giving to particles the divine power of creation is the most absurd notion man has ever spoken. Chemical evolution denies the necessity of intelligence, imagination and personhood. (A strange view to be championed by intelligent, imaginative, persons.)
I find the idea of a mindless, accidental creation both impossible and nauseating. I reject it with the disdain I would treat a mud pie. I find it loathsome that human beings will not honor their creator, or at the very least acknowledge his work. To deny the Creator is akin to claiming a troop of monkeys wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
Chemical evolution is a counterfeit creation story. It's so preposterous it's akin to claiming Arthur's sword was a natural product, a mere product of rock formation, as natural as the rock it was embedded in.
Chemical evolution requires that particles possess God's wisdom; that they possess the information needed to create all the original living forms. As far as I know we don't have microscopes powerful enough to detect this, but as Darwinists like to say, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until we do. (Skeptics will want to know where particles got this information content, but it's clear that it was produced with the big bang, when normal physical laws didn't exist and so this was possible. It's true that we don't yet know how this happened, but there's a general feeling among scientists that in a matter of 5-10 years we'll know.)
2. ‘Science’, in the strong sense, deals with repeatable events under precisely controlled conditions, and these testable results are to be valid across time, location and experimenter. Although all conclusions should still be treated as tentative descriptive models, even incomplete understanding can lead to advances in technology and medicine. Christians certainly approve of this form of knowledge acquisition, when applied in beneficial ways not contrary to God’s commandments. However, scientific methodologies available to interpret historical and geological events are, unfortunately, far less reliable. [2.]
- The game people like Sam Harris etc. play is to conflate real (hard) science with such philosophical speculations as neo-Darwinism. Darwinism is to science what plastic fruit is to a full course meal. It's little more than comical to say creationists are against science. This is like saying one is against food because one doesn't like Haggis. (Darwinism is to science what a carriage drawn to the moon by encapsulated dew drops is to a space ship. It's an imaginative story yes; but it won't get you anywhere.)
This is a far more important question than many realize. It's not just a philosophical 'game' as it were. Take a mouse; do its 'thoughts' reflect an external reality? How well do they reflect reality? how much of reality do they reflect? We can ask similar questions of human beings.
Is there any way for us to know if our thoughts reflect an external reality? Is there a way to know how well they do this? It's absurd to speak of facts if we can't answer these questions.
How well do the 'thoughts' (let's be liberal) of a goldfish reflect the reality of the ocean? Should we rely on it for information about the seas? Would it be a good guide for navigation? We might imagine that it thinks it knows all there is to know about water. It might even consider itself an
expert.
3. ‘By information I mean a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.’ [3.]
- We find no information in particles, but perhaps this is only because we haven't looked hard enough. We see no guidelines on how to construct a biological organism. (Perhaps someone forgot to write the manual, or forgot to enclose it.) We can say that particles were created by an intelligent agent, but they're not intelligent in and of themselves. They don't need intelligence and (thus?) don't have it. They're the blind leading the blind
Particles don't require these functions and so don't have them. It's important to stress that in the story of cosmic evolution these mechanisms at one time didn't exist. (For me this is all the data I need to reject Materialism.) The claim of chemical evolution is as believable to me as the claim one could safely drive across the country in a car without brakes or a steering wheel.
People who deny creation are like those who deny their own faces in a mirror. One hardly finds their protestations believable.
4. "When a mutation makes a bacterium resistant to antibiotics, for example, it does so by disabling its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. There is a net loss of information and of fitness in a general sense, but there is a gain in fitness in specific toxin-filled environments.'' [4.]
- Human beings themselves provide far better evidence for a source of creation than do bacteria. Why do men look into bacteria when they should be looking into their own hearts? Is there something they're trying to escape?
Human society in our day (as I suppose it is in every day) is an especially toxin filled environment... and some people do indeed do well in it. e.g. Darwinists. We might think of Humanism as a loss of information.
5. ‘One convenient way of expressing this distinction is to say that the standard examples of micro-evolution are all of horizontal evolution, while the grand creative process should be called vertical evolution." [5.]
- The materialist is of all people the one with the least amount of hope for his position; he's literally climbing the walls in search of an answer. Chemical evolution is a riddle invented by the few to torture the many. A far more rational approach is agnosticism.
6. "Whereas the drafting committee had defined science as the human activity of seeking natural explanations, the board substituted that "science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us." [6.]
- The idea 'science' is about seeking natural' explanations is founded on the pretense that there's only one kind of explanation; that there's only way level of explanation. We need to stress that there are many ways of defining terms (especially important terms). This can be seen by a brief look at any dictionary. The attempt to define science in a single sentence (or entry) is a comical enterprise at best.
Modernists (especially of the atheist sort) have attempted to define science in a way it never was in the past. They've tried to narrow the definition until it becomes equal to materialism and reductionism. i.e. they've applied reductionism to the idea of science as they apply it to everything else. They want to make science a guild or closed shop; where only card carrying atheists may apply. (It's perhaps unnecessary to point out how undemocratic this agenda is.)
Science;
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind.
Webster 1828
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge. - W/1913
7. Johnson says that students should have the right to judge the merits of Neo-Darwinism;
‘Is the "evolution" that biologists observe merely a matter of variation within preexisting species or types, or is it a genuine creative process that over time can produce new complex organs and new kinds of organism?’ [7.] (p. 72).
* - I find it odd that students are encouraged to decide for themselves what is morally right and wrong, to decide whether or not to have sex or even an abortion, but they're not allowed to decide whether or not Darwinism can fully account for the life forms on the planet. This is akin to telling a small child what shoes he must wear but letting himself decide whether or not to cross the hiway. Again we see an anti-democratic spirit at work in the schools when it comes to the creation/evolution debate.
8. ‘For example, Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie urged scientists on university admissions committees to notify the Kansas governor and the state board of education that "in light of the newly lowered education standards in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state in the future will have to be considered very carefully"’ (p. 80).
- The worst bullies in the educational system are not students, but teachers, professors and outside agitators like Rennie. This is a vile and utterly uncivil threat levelled at students and their parents.
Why would anyone think Rennie is going to be honest about the Origins debate?
8. "Gould takes for granted that all such questions are within the magisterium of science." [8.]’ (p. 98).
- I find comical the idea science (i.e. scientists) will define what is and isn't religion. This is like a thief defining property rights, or a child telling his parents what his rights are and what their duties are.
9. "For example, Richard Dawkins commented that science is compatible with religion if the latter means only feelings of awe at the wonders of the universe or the fundamental laws of physics." [9.]
- I have to admit I rarely find myself in awe over the fundamental laws of physics; no doubt this is a personal failing. The atheist wants to restrict religion to feeling; but wouldn't that make his own feelings religious? What then of his feeling that there is no God; wouldn't that qualify as a religious feeling?
10. "They [the Darwinists] realise that it is safer to allow God a shadowy existence in human subjectivity than to run the risk that this very threatening presence will burst into objective reality. That is when we hear the standard vague reassurances that "many people believe in both God and evolution", or that "science does not say that God does not exist", or that "science and religion are separate realms."’ [10.]
- It's my view that science and religion are as separate as body and soul. I believe that as man is a single unit so is truth; as man has various aspects so has investigation into human experience. As man is in the universe, so is science within Revelation (or creation).
Realm;
1. A community or territory over which a sovereign rules; a kingdom.
- Ideally the sciences are provinces within the kingdom of God. In general terms we can say that 'science' and 'religion' are provinces within the same kingdom. To see a conflict between science and religion is taking an atomistic approach when a holistic approach is what's called for.
If Materialism is consistently applied it leads to the death of man, and how strange it is that men should construct philosophies that lead to their own extinction. What happened to the will to survive? Did it begin to die off with the advent of Darwinism? Maybe people on the whole aren't all that thrilled with being apes (in drag). That some few are is certainly true; but then again we do have some funny parades now days don't we? I wouldn't take seriously anything purple people eaters have to say about Origins.
Extremophile enthusiasm for Darwinism is something I don't understand; even though I accepted Evolution (M2M) when I was a teenager and maintained it all through my twenties. Why some people are so fanatic about it is beyond me, as it seems a horrid nightmare of an idea.
If there were no self how could there be facts? Aren't facts conclusions made by persons? ie. by selves. If there is no self who (what?) is it that believes x to be true? Do particles believe things? Don't you have to think to believe?
If we reduce everything down to the particle level how do we answer the question of reality; what then becomes of reality? What then is it? Is there any reality at the particle level? I can't imagine there is, but it would be a funny kind of reality if there were. If we reduce everything to the particle level we lose rationality, and words are only noise and thoughts only chemical reactions. To take everything to the particle level is to live beneath our station, it's to live without any awareness of who we are.
If we take things down (way, way down) to the particle level who is there to say what is reality. Reality is, after all, a pronouncement made by a person. If there are no selves there is therefore no reality. (The Biblical creationist of course believes that it is the Creator who makes the pronouncement of what reality is.)
If there are no selves who is going to compose the agreement (consensus) needed to create the facts of reality? If there is no self there is no reality and if there is no reality there are no facts. This unfortunately means for the materialist that nothing he says can be true.
11. "The irony is that eliminative materialism itself is fatal to science, since it implies that even the scientists are not really conscious and that their boasted rationality is really rationalization." [11.]
- The atheist claims he doesn't need a metaphysical basis for his opinions, but this is like a man saying he has no need of a place to stand, or a fish saying it has no need of water, or a bird saying it has no need of sky. It's true that the atheist is able to speak about morality and ethics (etc.) but his words have no necessary connection to reality. e.g. you might succeed in selling a gullible person a non-existent island, but the sale doesn't make the island appear.
The materialist is in the position of trying to live on a non-existent island. (The only way he can survive is to catch a ride from a creationist with a boat.)
Ideas not rooted in reality will necessarily disappear. The rejection of intelligent creation is an idea that cannot and will not stand the test of time. Materialism is a non-existent island floating in the void.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer at Gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson; 2000 p.13
2. p. 37
3. p. 42
4. p.46
5. p.128
6. p.68
7. p.72
8. p.98
9. p.100
10. p.141
11. p.119
12. Note; Would it be correct to say that what the Materialist calls emergence the creationist calls transcendence?
Transcend;
1. To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe):
- The Materialist claims that intelligence is an emergent quality, while the creationist claims it's a transcendent entity. i.e. it's independent of matter because it's not the produce of matter but of information (that is embedded in matter). I think that what we call 'life' is also a transcendent entity; that all life forms are not merely 'emergent' phenomenon but transcendent realities.
13. I need to note that I borrowed these quotations from a review by Royal Truman. I read the book some years ago but didn't make any notes. Since he's a writer I respect I read the review even though I'd read the book.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Materialism and the mindless game
Today I want to make a few comments about the book 'The way of the Cell' by Franklin M. Harold [2001]
Quotes and comments;
1. ‘The bedrock premise of this book is that life is a material phenomenon, grounded in chemistry and physics … The findings of biologists … compel us to admit that we humans, like all other organisms, are transient constellations of jostling molecules, brought forth by a mindless game of chance devoid of plan or intent’. [1.]
- The data in no way compel people to think anything; they can't... they're impersonal and mute.
The fact chemistry and physics are involved in biological organisms in no way necessitates that this is All that is involved.
I'm sure professor Harold knows a lot, and a lot more than I do, but I fail to see how he can know that life is a 'mindless game of chance' without having access to a more than earthly (sized) library. Has he managed to communicate with Micromegas I wonder :=}
The trouble for the materialist is that if the universe is a mindless game of chance we couldn't possibly know it. This claim has nothing to do with empirical science, and we ask the professor to admit it. He claims that there is no plan or intent to anything in the universe, but isn't he a bit afraid he's only expressing his ignorance? All he can properly say is that he doesn't see any... or admit that he doesn't want to see any. If he's what he says he is (or is he only talking about us non-tenured folk) then how can he expect mere matter in motion, a product of a mindless game of chance to know the deepest reality (realities) of the universe?
What's so ironic about his proclamation is that he knows full well that we see more than chemistry and physics in the cell. (Matter and physics give you chemistry, they don't give you a living cell, they don't give you information, they don't give you code, they don't give you machines.) Professor Harold is asking far more from these humble servants than they can possibly deliver.
2. 'Consistent with the theme of ‘biological organization’ (p. xi), the avowed purpose of the book ‘is to assess how far we have come toward a scientific understanding of the phenomenon
of life’ (p. ix).
- The scientific understanding? as opposed to the understanding? I'm intrigued by why he adds the adjective. Understanding is understanding is it not? I suspect that by scientific understanding he means materialist understanding. i.e. an understanding of 'life' in terms solely of materialism. We need to ask then if that would constitute understanding. If creation is true then it does not, as at best the materialist could only have a partial understanding. If the goal of research is a complete understanding why would a scientist insist on a purely materialist model. Is he interested in understanding or in materialism?
3. ‘...living things differ from nonliving nonliving ones most pointedly in their capacity to maintain, reproduce and multiply states of matter characterized by an extreme degree of organization’ (p. xi).
- Is this the biggest differentiation between living and non-living things? Is the difference between inert matter and living organism one solely of the degree of organization? I suppose that's one way you could look at it, but it's not one I find intellectually fulfilling. There is far more than organization going on here. You could organize a bunch of sand grains in an incredibly complex way and never get them to fly away or reproduce. As a physicalist he's too focused on the material to see what an inadequate explanation this is.
4. 'Natural selection emerges as the preeminent creative force to which we owe all the marvels of biology’ (p. 192).
- If natural selection were the creative force behind the biosphere we wouldn't owe it a thing as it's not a person. (It's not even a mechanism for that matter.) Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling the wind or the rain a creative force; we might as well worship the sun and the moon.
Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling a pencil sharpener the creative force behind a poem or essay. Harold apparently conflates an effective force and a creative force; but this is a difference as large as that between a chisel and a sculptor, a fire and a blacksmith.
If everything is merely matter in motion and the unintended product of a mindless game of chance why do we (humans) look at the world and experience awe? If all is chemistry and physics where is this awe coming from, and why do we experience living forms as marvels? How is it matter is in awe of matter?
Harold might have been better off studying the word marvel than reading the lastest diatribe by Dawkins, and would have learned more.
Marvel;
1. Strong surprise; astonishment.
- Why should matter be surprised and astonished at matter?
2. One that evokes surprise, admiration, or wonder
3. To wonder at; be struck with surprise at; be perplexed with curiosity about:
- If we could tune in on them would we here grains of sand singing hymns of praise to rocks :=} Is it right for Harold to marvel, but the problem is that he doesn't let his wonder instruct him; he acknowledges it briefly and then moves on, when he should sit and ponder the lesson to be learned. i.e. ''how is it a bag of chemicals is filled with wonder?'' or ''what are the implications of this astonishment and awe?" Rather than listen to this still small voice he escapes into theory, saving himself from discomfiting thoughts.
Marvel;
- c.1300, "miracle," also "wonderful story or legend," from O.Fr. merveille "a wonder," from V.L. *miribilia, alt. from L. mirabilia "wonderful things," from neut. pl. of mirabilis "strange or wonderful," from mirari "to wonder at," from mirus "wonderful" (see smile).
- To call something a marvel is to call it a miracle. The theologian C. Van Til was adamant that all men know God, and when we hear an atheist like Harold call the living organism a marvel it's my view that he's admitting his awareness of the creator. (At some level he knows there is a creator. This sounds confusing but we're all aware that people can know something but be unwilling to admit it. e.g. the pro athlete who won't admit he's not good enough, the would-be writer, the man who needs help but won't admit it, and so on.)
I'm sure he wouldn't agree, but his language gives him away. (Maybe we can say that his language center knows there's a Creator :=} I don't think the use of words is entirely arbitrary; in fact I think it's close to the opposite. (We might say that prof. Harold is looking at the marvels of the world and smiling, but that he doesn't know why.) I'll believe in materialism when I see a rock smile and wink its eye.
5. ‘...no cosmic plan, only molecules whose writhings and couplings underlie and explain all that the cell does’ (p. 65).
- To say that molecules explain all that the cell does (and I think this even incorrect on a banal level) is akin to saying the wheels and springs inside a watch explain all there is about it. It's akin to calling the ocean a nice reflective surface that does a good job of reproducing clouds.
I suppose I'm jealous of his expertise and learning, but how is it he knows there is no cosmic plan? I wonder if I could get him to share with me his methodology. This is akin to enjoying a tasty bowl of soup and looking for the cook inside the empty soup tin.
6. 'In Chapter 8 Harold tries to unravel the early history of life and regrets ‘that more than three quarters of that history does not lend itself to public display, for it is wholly the record of microbial life’ (p. 159).
- Life isn't a matter of numbers or statistics. Like the angry Earthman in Voltaire's Micromega, I refuse to accept the quantitative analysis of life on earth as authoritative, as telling us anything about meaning or importance.
Why the regret Prof. Harold? Ask yourself how it is that a bit of matter, a transient constellation of molecules, feels regret. (We know why Jesus wept, but why do you?) If all is matter in motion then nothing can be other than what it is, nothing could have been other than what it was. There is no reason for regret in materialism. Chemicals know nothing of regret, they don't long for things that don't exist, they feel no loss or sorrow. (Am I missing something? Perhaps I've not looked into a microscope long enough.
Prof. H. regrets that he can't share what he knows with his audience, but chemicals have no desire to share anything; so how is it he has this feeling? Aren't the bigger marvels his feelings of awe, wonder and regret?
Can there really be a history of microbial life? Can we have history without persons? No one ever witnessed the events you write about, and therefore can't give us a history of it. You can't separate history from intelligent, personal agents.
7. 'After expressing his concerns about tree problems he still has the ‘courage’ to say,
‘The great tree is likely to be seen as one of the triumphs of biology in the twentieth century’ (p. 162).
- How is it a product of mindless chance, chemistry plus time can know what the verdict of future generations will be upon a Darwinian construct? If all is matter in motion how can anything be a triumph? Does matter triumph over matter?
How is it courage exists in a mindless universe of matter in motion? Don't these stirrings of courage tell us the materialist vision is false? Does one rock admire another rock's willingness to fall? (Has anyone heard such a story? If the rocks could speak is this what they would say?) When I see rocks marching as soldiers in line behind some great bolder, or when I see them cheering such a parade, is when I'll believe in Materialism.
To rejoice, to know what it is to feel this elation in triumph is to experience the fallacy of materialism in one's own bosom. To see the fallacy of m. all one has to do is meditate upon one's feeling of joy. (no bit of matter has ever experienced it.) The simplest hymn the homeliest congregation has ever sung refutes materialism.
I hate to be pedantic, but the phrase twentieth century can't have any meaning in terms of a consistent materialism. It's akin to dating the genealogy of mice or ducks by the first opening of Disneyland. (I hate to be called pedantic at any rate.)
8. 'In spite of the fact that the ‘tree’ is badly tangled at the present time, and we understand less than we thought we knew in the past few decades, Harold and others maintain their ‘faith’ in a
phylogenetic tree.
- The phylogenetic tree is so tangled it looks like a ball of fishing twine on the bottom of the skiff after a rough day out in the bay. With each passing year, and each passing rock of the boat it gets more and more tangled. Trying to make sense of it is akin to reading the future from animal entrails.
9. ‘The postulate of a single universal ancestor, its biblical overtones notwithstanding, rests on a solid foundation of fact’ (p. 169).
- We can only surmise from this that prof. Harold has a very liberal definition of fact. (Was he the one who defined evolution as change?) To claim a factual foundation for chemical evolution is akin to saying there's a factual foundation for Vulcans.
10. ‘The most compelling argument [for common ancestry] comes from the discovery that all extant organisms employ the same genetic code’ (p. 169).
- I don't know how an ecosystem could work any other way, but then again I know so little when compared to prof. Harold. Could we imagine a global ecosystem that didn't have a single code?
If you were designing a planet professor Harold, would you or would you not base it on a single genetic code? [3.]
11. '‘No satisfying scheme of this kind is presently on the books, and I have none to offer … The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication’ (p. 251).
- On p.169 he told us chemical evolution has a solid basis in fact, but now he seems to have changed his mind :=} It's a fact, but it's incomprehensible? Apparently.
He's not satisfied by his inability to explain chemical e. to be able to show us how it could be true; but why if he's merely a bag of chemicals why is he dissatisfied? In his feelings of frustration, and dissatisfaction he has all the evidence he needs for realizing m. isn't (and can't) be true. A desire for rational comprehension can't be explained by chemicals plus physics. If the professor would pay more attention to his own experience and less to textbooks he might find his way out of the tangled maze of theory he's stuck in.
Do rocks care about being intellectually satisfied? Man's longing for understanding is all the evidence he needs that Materialism is false.
12. 'Harold recognizes that these types of study constitute ‘historical’ science where the tools are ‘soft’; ‘hard science is stymied … the trail is too cold, the traces too faint’ (p. 252).
- Well; let's stop pretending Evolution is a fact in that case. The only fact in this scenario is that there are no facts.
13. ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity’ (p. 205).
- The dialogue of chance and necessity? Is that anything like the dialogue of nose and finger?
As a matter of principle? what principle? what principle does matter adhere to? what principle do chemicals hold near and dear? If all were matter in motion the idea of principles would be a delusion.
14. Harold also concedes that, ‘a chance origin [of life] commands much less respect than it did a decade or two ago, for two reasons.’ The first is the enormous improbability (not enough time and atoms for all the necessary trials). The second reason is that ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ (p. 239).
- As Cornelius Van Til said; all men know God.
If all were simply chemicals plus physics it' hard for me to understand how there could be unique events; but I suppose this is only my naivete at work, fooling me into believing there's a need for a creator. I'm sure prof. Harold knows better. As far as I know, there are no unique events in chemistry, and there are no unique events in terms of physics. Whence then comes the unique event?
15. 'The general scientific consensus that there was a naturalistic origin of life about four
billion years ago is accepted because, first, there is no ‘palatable alternative...’
- If people don't find creation a 'palatable' alternative I would think it's because their taste buds are out of whack.
All he's saying is, 'creation can't be true, because I don't like it.' Why the 'thoughts' of a bag of chemicals should be determinative as to the constitution of the universe is something the atheist doesn't tell us. - Life is full of things we don't like, and I suspect the ultimate nature of reality is just one more.
16. ‘...absent the presumption of a terrestrial and natural genesis there would be no basis for scientific inquiry into the origin of life’ (p. 237).
- Is there such a thing as a 'scientific' inquiry into the origin of life. Harold tells us elsewhere that he doesn't think there is! Did he forget that he also told us, ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ [239.]
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life by Franklin M. Harold; 2001 review by Wayne Frair (pp. 254–255)
- my comments are based on a review of the book. (I missed the book when it came out.)
2. We might call Darwinism 'The way of the Sell'
3. You should be thankful there's only one genetic code professor; since you can't explain where the one we have came from imagine how embarassing it would be not to be able to explain several.
4. '...Harold’s summary of how he conceives that, strictly by chance (naturalistic) processes, life could have begun: presence of diverse localized and abundant organic molecules; compartmentation; stream of energy; mounting levels of complexity; energy flux to organization; transmissible, executable, alterable and repeatedly-tested genetic code (pp. 250–251)
- Didn't he tell us everything was a matter of chemistry and physics? I see a whole lot here that isn't chemicals or physics!
Let's not forget that it all has to work together, and all has to come together at the right time.
What does complexity have to do with chemicals? Is there a chemical called complexity? Is there a chemical called compartmentation?
5. ‘… but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations’ (p. 205).
- Does he know himself better than we suspect, or was he merely having an off day?
Detailed accounts? there are no accounts period.
Quotes and comments;
1. ‘The bedrock premise of this book is that life is a material phenomenon, grounded in chemistry and physics … The findings of biologists … compel us to admit that we humans, like all other organisms, are transient constellations of jostling molecules, brought forth by a mindless game of chance devoid of plan or intent’. [1.]
- The data in no way compel people to think anything; they can't... they're impersonal and mute.
The fact chemistry and physics are involved in biological organisms in no way necessitates that this is All that is involved.
I'm sure professor Harold knows a lot, and a lot more than I do, but I fail to see how he can know that life is a 'mindless game of chance' without having access to a more than earthly (sized) library. Has he managed to communicate with Micromegas I wonder :=}
The trouble for the materialist is that if the universe is a mindless game of chance we couldn't possibly know it. This claim has nothing to do with empirical science, and we ask the professor to admit it. He claims that there is no plan or intent to anything in the universe, but isn't he a bit afraid he's only expressing his ignorance? All he can properly say is that he doesn't see any... or admit that he doesn't want to see any. If he's what he says he is (or is he only talking about us non-tenured folk) then how can he expect mere matter in motion, a product of a mindless game of chance to know the deepest reality (realities) of the universe?
What's so ironic about his proclamation is that he knows full well that we see more than chemistry and physics in the cell. (Matter and physics give you chemistry, they don't give you a living cell, they don't give you information, they don't give you code, they don't give you machines.) Professor Harold is asking far more from these humble servants than they can possibly deliver.
2. 'Consistent with the theme of ‘biological organization’ (p. xi), the avowed purpose of the book ‘is to assess how far we have come toward a scientific understanding of the phenomenon
of life’ (p. ix).
- The scientific understanding? as opposed to the understanding? I'm intrigued by why he adds the adjective. Understanding is understanding is it not? I suspect that by scientific understanding he means materialist understanding. i.e. an understanding of 'life' in terms solely of materialism. We need to ask then if that would constitute understanding. If creation is true then it does not, as at best the materialist could only have a partial understanding. If the goal of research is a complete understanding why would a scientist insist on a purely materialist model. Is he interested in understanding or in materialism?
3. ‘...living things differ from nonliving nonliving ones most pointedly in their capacity to maintain, reproduce and multiply states of matter characterized by an extreme degree of organization’ (p. xi).
- Is this the biggest differentiation between living and non-living things? Is the difference between inert matter and living organism one solely of the degree of organization? I suppose that's one way you could look at it, but it's not one I find intellectually fulfilling. There is far more than organization going on here. You could organize a bunch of sand grains in an incredibly complex way and never get them to fly away or reproduce. As a physicalist he's too focused on the material to see what an inadequate explanation this is.
4. 'Natural selection emerges as the preeminent creative force to which we owe all the marvels of biology’ (p. 192).
- If natural selection were the creative force behind the biosphere we wouldn't owe it a thing as it's not a person. (It's not even a mechanism for that matter.) Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling the wind or the rain a creative force; we might as well worship the sun and the moon.
Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling a pencil sharpener the creative force behind a poem or essay. Harold apparently conflates an effective force and a creative force; but this is a difference as large as that between a chisel and a sculptor, a fire and a blacksmith.
If everything is merely matter in motion and the unintended product of a mindless game of chance why do we (humans) look at the world and experience awe? If all is chemistry and physics where is this awe coming from, and why do we experience living forms as marvels? How is it matter is in awe of matter?
Harold might have been better off studying the word marvel than reading the lastest diatribe by Dawkins, and would have learned more.
Marvel;
1. Strong surprise; astonishment.
- Why should matter be surprised and astonished at matter?
2. One that evokes surprise, admiration, or wonder
3. To wonder at; be struck with surprise at; be perplexed with curiosity about:
- If we could tune in on them would we here grains of sand singing hymns of praise to rocks :=} Is it right for Harold to marvel, but the problem is that he doesn't let his wonder instruct him; he acknowledges it briefly and then moves on, when he should sit and ponder the lesson to be learned. i.e. ''how is it a bag of chemicals is filled with wonder?'' or ''what are the implications of this astonishment and awe?" Rather than listen to this still small voice he escapes into theory, saving himself from discomfiting thoughts.
Marvel;
- c.1300, "miracle," also "wonderful story or legend," from O.Fr. merveille "a wonder," from V.L. *miribilia, alt. from L. mirabilia "wonderful things," from neut. pl. of mirabilis "strange or wonderful," from mirari "to wonder at," from mirus "wonderful" (see smile).
- To call something a marvel is to call it a miracle. The theologian C. Van Til was adamant that all men know God, and when we hear an atheist like Harold call the living organism a marvel it's my view that he's admitting his awareness of the creator. (At some level he knows there is a creator. This sounds confusing but we're all aware that people can know something but be unwilling to admit it. e.g. the pro athlete who won't admit he's not good enough, the would-be writer, the man who needs help but won't admit it, and so on.)
I'm sure he wouldn't agree, but his language gives him away. (Maybe we can say that his language center knows there's a Creator :=} I don't think the use of words is entirely arbitrary; in fact I think it's close to the opposite. (We might say that prof. Harold is looking at the marvels of the world and smiling, but that he doesn't know why.) I'll believe in materialism when I see a rock smile and wink its eye.
5. ‘...no cosmic plan, only molecules whose writhings and couplings underlie and explain all that the cell does’ (p. 65).
- To say that molecules explain all that the cell does (and I think this even incorrect on a banal level) is akin to saying the wheels and springs inside a watch explain all there is about it. It's akin to calling the ocean a nice reflective surface that does a good job of reproducing clouds.
I suppose I'm jealous of his expertise and learning, but how is it he knows there is no cosmic plan? I wonder if I could get him to share with me his methodology. This is akin to enjoying a tasty bowl of soup and looking for the cook inside the empty soup tin.
6. 'In Chapter 8 Harold tries to unravel the early history of life and regrets ‘that more than three quarters of that history does not lend itself to public display, for it is wholly the record of microbial life’ (p. 159).
- Life isn't a matter of numbers or statistics. Like the angry Earthman in Voltaire's Micromega, I refuse to accept the quantitative analysis of life on earth as authoritative, as telling us anything about meaning or importance.
Why the regret Prof. Harold? Ask yourself how it is that a bit of matter, a transient constellation of molecules, feels regret. (We know why Jesus wept, but why do you?) If all is matter in motion then nothing can be other than what it is, nothing could have been other than what it was. There is no reason for regret in materialism. Chemicals know nothing of regret, they don't long for things that don't exist, they feel no loss or sorrow. (Am I missing something? Perhaps I've not looked into a microscope long enough.
Prof. H. regrets that he can't share what he knows with his audience, but chemicals have no desire to share anything; so how is it he has this feeling? Aren't the bigger marvels his feelings of awe, wonder and regret?
Can there really be a history of microbial life? Can we have history without persons? No one ever witnessed the events you write about, and therefore can't give us a history of it. You can't separate history from intelligent, personal agents.
7. 'After expressing his concerns about tree problems he still has the ‘courage’ to say,
‘The great tree is likely to be seen as one of the triumphs of biology in the twentieth century’ (p. 162).
- How is it a product of mindless chance, chemistry plus time can know what the verdict of future generations will be upon a Darwinian construct? If all is matter in motion how can anything be a triumph? Does matter triumph over matter?
How is it courage exists in a mindless universe of matter in motion? Don't these stirrings of courage tell us the materialist vision is false? Does one rock admire another rock's willingness to fall? (Has anyone heard such a story? If the rocks could speak is this what they would say?) When I see rocks marching as soldiers in line behind some great bolder, or when I see them cheering such a parade, is when I'll believe in Materialism.
To rejoice, to know what it is to feel this elation in triumph is to experience the fallacy of materialism in one's own bosom. To see the fallacy of m. all one has to do is meditate upon one's feeling of joy. (no bit of matter has ever experienced it.) The simplest hymn the homeliest congregation has ever sung refutes materialism.
I hate to be pedantic, but the phrase twentieth century can't have any meaning in terms of a consistent materialism. It's akin to dating the genealogy of mice or ducks by the first opening of Disneyland. (I hate to be called pedantic at any rate.)
8. 'In spite of the fact that the ‘tree’ is badly tangled at the present time, and we understand less than we thought we knew in the past few decades, Harold and others maintain their ‘faith’ in a
phylogenetic tree.
- The phylogenetic tree is so tangled it looks like a ball of fishing twine on the bottom of the skiff after a rough day out in the bay. With each passing year, and each passing rock of the boat it gets more and more tangled. Trying to make sense of it is akin to reading the future from animal entrails.
9. ‘The postulate of a single universal ancestor, its biblical overtones notwithstanding, rests on a solid foundation of fact’ (p. 169).
- We can only surmise from this that prof. Harold has a very liberal definition of fact. (Was he the one who defined evolution as change?) To claim a factual foundation for chemical evolution is akin to saying there's a factual foundation for Vulcans.
10. ‘The most compelling argument [for common ancestry] comes from the discovery that all extant organisms employ the same genetic code’ (p. 169).
- I don't know how an ecosystem could work any other way, but then again I know so little when compared to prof. Harold. Could we imagine a global ecosystem that didn't have a single code?
If you were designing a planet professor Harold, would you or would you not base it on a single genetic code? [3.]
11. '‘No satisfying scheme of this kind is presently on the books, and I have none to offer … The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication’ (p. 251).
- On p.169 he told us chemical evolution has a solid basis in fact, but now he seems to have changed his mind :=} It's a fact, but it's incomprehensible? Apparently.
He's not satisfied by his inability to explain chemical e. to be able to show us how it could be true; but why if he's merely a bag of chemicals why is he dissatisfied? In his feelings of frustration, and dissatisfaction he has all the evidence he needs for realizing m. isn't (and can't) be true. A desire for rational comprehension can't be explained by chemicals plus physics. If the professor would pay more attention to his own experience and less to textbooks he might find his way out of the tangled maze of theory he's stuck in.
Do rocks care about being intellectually satisfied? Man's longing for understanding is all the evidence he needs that Materialism is false.
12. 'Harold recognizes that these types of study constitute ‘historical’ science where the tools are ‘soft’; ‘hard science is stymied … the trail is too cold, the traces too faint’ (p. 252).
- Well; let's stop pretending Evolution is a fact in that case. The only fact in this scenario is that there are no facts.
13. ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity’ (p. 205).
- The dialogue of chance and necessity? Is that anything like the dialogue of nose and finger?
As a matter of principle? what principle? what principle does matter adhere to? what principle do chemicals hold near and dear? If all were matter in motion the idea of principles would be a delusion.
14. Harold also concedes that, ‘a chance origin [of life] commands much less respect than it did a decade or two ago, for two reasons.’ The first is the enormous improbability (not enough time and atoms for all the necessary trials). The second reason is that ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ (p. 239).
- As Cornelius Van Til said; all men know God.
If all were simply chemicals plus physics it' hard for me to understand how there could be unique events; but I suppose this is only my naivete at work, fooling me into believing there's a need for a creator. I'm sure prof. Harold knows better. As far as I know, there are no unique events in chemistry, and there are no unique events in terms of physics. Whence then comes the unique event?
15. 'The general scientific consensus that there was a naturalistic origin of life about four
billion years ago is accepted because, first, there is no ‘palatable alternative...’
- If people don't find creation a 'palatable' alternative I would think it's because their taste buds are out of whack.
All he's saying is, 'creation can't be true, because I don't like it.' Why the 'thoughts' of a bag of chemicals should be determinative as to the constitution of the universe is something the atheist doesn't tell us. - Life is full of things we don't like, and I suspect the ultimate nature of reality is just one more.
16. ‘...absent the presumption of a terrestrial and natural genesis there would be no basis for scientific inquiry into the origin of life’ (p. 237).
- Is there such a thing as a 'scientific' inquiry into the origin of life. Harold tells us elsewhere that he doesn't think there is! Did he forget that he also told us, ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ [239.]
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life by Franklin M. Harold; 2001 review by Wayne Frair (pp. 254–255)
- my comments are based on a review of the book. (I missed the book when it came out.)
2. We might call Darwinism 'The way of the Sell'
3. You should be thankful there's only one genetic code professor; since you can't explain where the one we have came from imagine how embarassing it would be not to be able to explain several.
4. '...Harold’s summary of how he conceives that, strictly by chance (naturalistic) processes, life could have begun: presence of diverse localized and abundant organic molecules; compartmentation; stream of energy; mounting levels of complexity; energy flux to organization; transmissible, executable, alterable and repeatedly-tested genetic code (pp. 250–251)
- Didn't he tell us everything was a matter of chemistry and physics? I see a whole lot here that isn't chemicals or physics!
Let's not forget that it all has to work together, and all has to come together at the right time.
What does complexity have to do with chemicals? Is there a chemical called complexity? Is there a chemical called compartmentation?
5. ‘… but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations’ (p. 205).
- Does he know himself better than we suspect, or was he merely having an off day?
Detailed accounts? there are no accounts period.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Afraid to fly
One of the major planks in the idea of cosmic evolution is the transformation of reptiles into birds. I find this notion highly improbable.
Quote and comments;
1. 'Many textbooks tell young people today that birds are modified reptiles. Suppose, they say, that millions of years ago the scales on some reptiles began to fray along the edges. In time, they say, the frayed scales turned into feathers and birds were born. [1.]
- Why would scales begin to fray?
What would cause this? (Scales are pretty tough things, and appear to be designed not to fray.) As far as I know, we don't see that happening in our day. Furthermore, it would appear that there are 'mechanisms' in place to see to it that scales don't fray.
If a scale is damaged this isn't duplicated in offspring. What would make a 'fraying' that was reproduced? Presumbably some mutation; but I've never heard of this particular mutation.
Isn't it likely that if this scenario were to happen that the reptiles with fraying scales would be less able to compete and thus die out? Does it help a human being to get skin disease? Does it help them if their skin starts to decay and fall off? Is a sweater getting better or worse when it starts to unravel? Does a shirt turn into a pair of pants by wearing out?
Would it help humans to lose finger nails I wonder.
A 'frayed' scale turns into a bird? Really? That doesn't sound like science to me. In reality frayed scales get dropped and is replaced by a normal (unfrayed) scale.
People seem to forget that a scale has a job to do; a frayed scale is thus reduced in its capacity to do its job. (A rope that begins to fray can resist less and less stress until it breaks; and here we see evolutionary theory hanging by a thread.)
A reptile with damaged scales would presumably be less able to move, less able to ward off attack, less able to retain moisture, and perhaps less able to camouflage themselves, and perhaps more. It's hard to imagine how this could be beneficial. [2.]
When these frayed scales turned into feathers I wonder which way they turned, because it was a hell of a trick. This is like a rag turning into a fur coat, or a toy wagon turning into a Cadillac. This is one of the secular miracles that Darwinism relies on. Everyone knows this is nothing but a story; spreading paper over a pothole.
2. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. [5.]
- The idea reptiles were transformed into birds has its source in a particular (Uniformitarian) interpretation of the fossil record. No one would dream of such an 'impossible' transfiguration without the fossil record; without a particular reading of the fossil record. (The fossil record we see in textbooks is a deliberate construct, and not a faithful representation of the real world.)
Summary;
"Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, [and] stretch her wings toward the south?" - Job 39:26
- No; the hawk flies because it was programmed by its creator to do so. It's not only intelligence that we see in the world, but divine wisdom. Wisdom is something over and above intelligence, as we can plainly see by observing intelligent people do and say stupid things. Wisdom in the sense meant here refers to seeing the whole picture, to seeing the entire ecological system and how it interacts.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Designed for Flight - Paul Bartz
2. Scales functions;
'The scales of a snake primarily serve to reduce friction as it moves, since friction is the major source of energy loss in
snake locomotion. The ventral (or belly) scales, which are large and oblong, are especially low-friction, and some arboreal species can use the edges to grip branches. Snake skin and scales help retain moisture in the animal's body. - wiki
- It wouldn't surprise me if scales had undiscovered functions.
4. Scale functions
Movement;
The scales on some reptiles assist the reptile with movement. In the case of snakes, the snake's belly scales are able to grab onto tiny imperfections on surfaces and create friction to propel the snake forward.
Protection;
The thick, prickly scales on a reptile can help protect it from predators. They can make it difficult for predators to bite or attack the reptile, as well as cause injury to the predator.
In the case of other reptiles, the color of the scales can provide a defense against attack. One example of this is the non-venomous milk snake, whose black and red ringed pattern resembles that of the highly venomous coral snake.
Water Retention;
Reptiles living in the desert have evolved special adaptations that allow them to thrive in the hot and dry climate. The scales of many desert reptile species allow them to retain moisture by preventing the evaporation of water through the skin. This allows the animal to become dehydrated less frequently and require smaller amounts of water to survive.
Camouflage;
The scales of many reptile species are either plainly or elaborately colored to assist with camouflage. This includes certain species of leaf-tail geckos, who can completely blend in to surrounding tree trunks and branches in their natural environment. [ehow.com]
5. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. The entire being of the bird, from body to brain, has been specially designed for flight by a Creator who clearly knows everything there is to know about flight. - Bartz; above
6. I was thinking of giving this post the title 'Affrayed to fly' but resisted the temptation.
Quote and comments;
1. 'Many textbooks tell young people today that birds are modified reptiles. Suppose, they say, that millions of years ago the scales on some reptiles began to fray along the edges. In time, they say, the frayed scales turned into feathers and birds were born. [1.]
- Why would scales begin to fray?
What would cause this? (Scales are pretty tough things, and appear to be designed not to fray.) As far as I know, we don't see that happening in our day. Furthermore, it would appear that there are 'mechanisms' in place to see to it that scales don't fray.
If a scale is damaged this isn't duplicated in offspring. What would make a 'fraying' that was reproduced? Presumbably some mutation; but I've never heard of this particular mutation.
Isn't it likely that if this scenario were to happen that the reptiles with fraying scales would be less able to compete and thus die out? Does it help a human being to get skin disease? Does it help them if their skin starts to decay and fall off? Is a sweater getting better or worse when it starts to unravel? Does a shirt turn into a pair of pants by wearing out?
Would it help humans to lose finger nails I wonder.
A 'frayed' scale turns into a bird? Really? That doesn't sound like science to me. In reality frayed scales get dropped and is replaced by a normal (unfrayed) scale.
People seem to forget that a scale has a job to do; a frayed scale is thus reduced in its capacity to do its job. (A rope that begins to fray can resist less and less stress until it breaks; and here we see evolutionary theory hanging by a thread.)
A reptile with damaged scales would presumably be less able to move, less able to ward off attack, less able to retain moisture, and perhaps less able to camouflage themselves, and perhaps more. It's hard to imagine how this could be beneficial. [2.]
When these frayed scales turned into feathers I wonder which way they turned, because it was a hell of a trick. This is like a rag turning into a fur coat, or a toy wagon turning into a Cadillac. This is one of the secular miracles that Darwinism relies on. Everyone knows this is nothing but a story; spreading paper over a pothole.
2. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. [5.]
- The idea reptiles were transformed into birds has its source in a particular (Uniformitarian) interpretation of the fossil record. No one would dream of such an 'impossible' transfiguration without the fossil record; without a particular reading of the fossil record. (The fossil record we see in textbooks is a deliberate construct, and not a faithful representation of the real world.)
Summary;
"Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, [and] stretch her wings toward the south?" - Job 39:26
- No; the hawk flies because it was programmed by its creator to do so. It's not only intelligence that we see in the world, but divine wisdom. Wisdom is something over and above intelligence, as we can plainly see by observing intelligent people do and say stupid things. Wisdom in the sense meant here refers to seeing the whole picture, to seeing the entire ecological system and how it interacts.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Designed for Flight - Paul Bartz
2. Scales functions;
'The scales of a snake primarily serve to reduce friction as it moves, since friction is the major source of energy loss in
snake locomotion. The ventral (or belly) scales, which are large and oblong, are especially low-friction, and some arboreal species can use the edges to grip branches. Snake skin and scales help retain moisture in the animal's body. - wiki
- It wouldn't surprise me if scales had undiscovered functions.
4. Scale functions
Movement;
The scales on some reptiles assist the reptile with movement. In the case of snakes, the snake's belly scales are able to grab onto tiny imperfections on surfaces and create friction to propel the snake forward.
Protection;
The thick, prickly scales on a reptile can help protect it from predators. They can make it difficult for predators to bite or attack the reptile, as well as cause injury to the predator.
In the case of other reptiles, the color of the scales can provide a defense against attack. One example of this is the non-venomous milk snake, whose black and red ringed pattern resembles that of the highly venomous coral snake.
Water Retention;
Reptiles living in the desert have evolved special adaptations that allow them to thrive in the hot and dry climate. The scales of many desert reptile species allow them to retain moisture by preventing the evaporation of water through the skin. This allows the animal to become dehydrated less frequently and require smaller amounts of water to survive.
Camouflage;
The scales of many reptile species are either plainly or elaborately colored to assist with camouflage. This includes certain species of leaf-tail geckos, who can completely blend in to surrounding tree trunks and branches in their natural environment. [ehow.com]
5. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. The entire being of the bird, from body to brain, has been specially designed for flight by a Creator who clearly knows everything there is to know about flight. - Bartz; above
6. I was thinking of giving this post the title 'Affrayed to fly' but resisted the temptation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
