Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909121150.X1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > > > to me. Please explain. > > > > > > It has one less premise. > > > > Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. > > I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. Self-creation is a logical contradiction. It is still a logical contradiction whether you see it or not. > > So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable > > to supernatural creation. > > I fail to see the absurdity. Further, I fail to see how any > creation precludes supernatural involvement. Who is arguing that? > Further, you are effectively claiming that the existance of > creation is physical evidence of God, and we know the Bible > specifically claims that God does not offer physical evidence, > since if He did, faith would not be necessary. Further, physical > evidence of God is a cotradiction of the doctorine of Free Will. Eh, chapter and verse, please. Actually the Bible seems to indicate the exact opposite. See Psalm 19, Romans 1 for example. It is the physical evidence that leaves man without any excuse. Physical evidence of God is a contradiction of the doctrine of free will? How so? > > This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who > > believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to > > type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me > > to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? > > Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs > > could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. > > Randomly, and kept as a result of being advantageous to the > survival of the genes. Yeah, and a million monkeys given enough time can produce the works of Shakespeare. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale... > > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > > > about creationism? > > > > -chat is a "technical" mailing list? > > Well, "-chat", wherever that's hosted, probably isn't, but > "FreeBSD-chat" is arguably FreeBSD related, at least in extremis. > 8-). Okay, take your ball and go home, if you must. 8-( > > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > > > > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > > > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > > > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > > > balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > > > Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. > > It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of keeping to a > single stream of argument in a single message thread. If you > want to start a seperate thread, feel free to make a seperate > posting. Be aware that I will probably just cite the Federalist > Papers, read one response, and then, if that response is not > cogent, ignore the rest of the thread. Well, I suppose that's best left as an argument for another time. BTW, yes I do know about the relevence of the Federalist Papers. > > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > > > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > > > "evolution" theory. > > > > The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. > > According to you. > > Look, I can personally make your theological arguments better > than you can, and I can do it in a context of the validity of > the right of secular science to come up with theories which > contradict religious doctorine, particularly when the results > are to be taught in secular schools sponsored by a secular state. If you think my theological arguments are substandard, then by all means you are free to improve on them. And who is claiming secular science does not have the right to come up with theories which contradict religious doctrine? And the whole purpose of the "secular" state in the first place was to preserve religious freedom, not to dogmatically ram naturalist philosophy down people's throats. Once again, naturalists prove that they are unwilling to be tolerant of opposing views. > I don't understand what you are arguing, apart from trying to > weasel people down to the teaching of religious doctorinal > theory as some sort of equivalence to a theory derived from > the same principles, and meeting the same strict tests, as the > theiry it claims equivalence to. I'm just trying to get people to re-examine their basic philosophical presuppositions, and to see the anti-religious bigotry of promoting evolution as "truth" in public schools when you yourself admit it is just a theory. If it is just a theory, why teach it as fact? Why not a little honesty and humility? Too much to ask for? > How about we start by you stating that you think creationism > is a theory, and that you are willing to replace that theory, > should a more rigorous one come along? It's not so much that, as that *any* theory about origins is going to be loaded down with philosophical or religious baggage. In fact, there are only two possible theories for this, and they will in the nature of the case be diametrically opposed to each other. I'm not asking for creation to be dogmatically taught in secular schools. I would just like the courtesy of a level playing field, or else the return of my tax dollars that are being used to indoctrinate people with views that I am philosophically opposed to. > > > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > > > > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > > > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > > > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > > > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > > > > Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a > > contradiction. > > No, it's not, but I hardly have time to educate you to the level > of a PhD in mathematics, with a field emphasis on chaos and large > number thory, particularly if you are going to approach it as an > adversarial process. It doesn't matter how many PhD's a person has in mathematics, the belief that chaos gives rise to order is prima facie irrational, as it is a blatant contradiction in terms. You don't need a PhD to see that, all you need is to see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. > > As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it > > isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used > > to "prove" the existence of chance. > > It's pseudo random. Just like "chance". I just have a particular > problem with the application of large number theory in /dev/random. > 8-). It appears we are talking past each other. You agree that what people call "chance" is not random at all? > > So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with > > evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly > > off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. > > Let me disabuse you of that interpretation. Selection does not > imply someone to select. It doesn't preclude it, but from our > understanding, it is the physical laws which govern selection. If you believe this, you *must* be a determinist not only with regard to life, but with regard to man's reason as well. Reason cannot be accounted for solely on naturalistic terms. We've gone over this before, and I didn't see a satisfactory answer. In fact, you appealed to "randomness" which you now appear to be rejecting. If its the physical laws that account for life, it is the physical laws that account for belief, even those that are diametrically opposed to yours. What is your proposed solution to this dilemma? > "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein An inaccurate statement, to say the least, which can at best lead to pantheism, at worst atheism (which are really the same thing, after all, per Spinoza). > > The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless > > you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves > > nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not > > input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those > > selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently > > designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the > > whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION > > CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed > > into the system, which forces you into a theistic worldview. > > Let's go back to a random mutation that results in an organsim > capable of breating Chlorine, but incapable of breathing Oxygen. > > The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- > is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen > and other trace gasses. > > Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. > > By insisting that selection has a "first mover", you Deify nature. > I don't have a problem with you being a Deist, but you probably > ought to examine your own nature before you try to examine that > of others, and find them wanting in your eyes. Actually it would be incorrect to classify me as a Deist, since I believe in the doctrine of God's providence. In fact, I don't believe that the uniformity of nature can be accounted for *without* the doctrine of God's providence, since we end up right back to the skepticism of David Hume. Aristotle's first mover cannot account for the uniformity of nature either. > > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > > > > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> > > > b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not > > > ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> > > > > > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. > > > > Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the > > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal > > concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as > > such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why > > is it so hard to admit that? > > Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really > annoys you about it. Whether or not it annoys me is irrelevent. Evolution does indeed attempt to give an explanation without reference to God, but replaces Him with an absurdity: random mutations giving rise to increasing degrees of complexity. > It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there > isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic > world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of > whether or not there is God. Actually it is completely unworkable without positing the existence of God, since it relies on the general uniformities of nature and the laws of physics, which cannot be accounted for on anything but a theistic worldview. > Evolution does not comment on God, at all. Actually, by asserting that God is not necessary, it is making quite an explosive comment. > I'll fully admit that it is in the realm of philosophy -- all > science is in the realm of philosophy. "PhD" means "Doctor of > Philosophy" (when translated to English). > > That doesn't make it a part of the realm of religion, unless you > happen to cleave to a *particular* philosophy that has as one of > its tenets that it is required to do so. > > The "and" in "religion and philosophy" was implied by your own > prejudices. Religion and philosophy deal with identical questions, so the conjunction is warranted. The choosing of a naturalistic philosophy over a supernaturalistic one determines how one interprets the facts. > > > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > > > > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > > > in useful ways. > > > > And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with > > naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you > > afraid they might actually think for themselves? > > No, we are afraid that they will be about as useful to species > survival as the people who teach "new math" or "outcome based > education", where it's more important to respect the individual's > opinions than it is to maintain a working society. 8-). And you think I'm dogmatic! Yeesh! > There's nothing that actually forces this so-called "indoctrination" > which you find offensive. Because the state recognizes you freedom > of religion -- your freedom to turn the "and" in "religion and > philosphy" into an equivalence relationship -- the state permits you > to teach your children whatever you want to teach them, in private > schools. If the state didn't not extract money from my paycheck for the support of public schools, I would agree with you. > > > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > > > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > > > predictive than "evolution" theory. > > > > Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. > > They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary > > dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into > > the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) > > That's simply not true. The failure to displace evolutionary > theory is based solely on the inability of creationist dogmatists > to produce a theory that better fits the fitness function than > evolutionary theory. Have you read Michael Behe? William Dembski? Michael Denton? > In fact, evolutionary theory has changed a number of times. It > will change again in the future. Your putative blind defenders > of the status quo would act against those changes, in the same > way that they would act against a sufficiently explanatory > creationist theory. Yet the changes have occurred anyway. This > places the blame not on defenders of the status quo, but on your > theorists, who failed to be as convincing as those who succeeded > in the same putative environment of intellectual inetia. Well, I must admit that the ID movement is young, and time will tell. > > > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > > > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > > > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > > > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > > > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > > > through His choice of natural laws. > > > > At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without > > moving into a theistic worldview. > > No. Merely that it is representable in a theistic intellectual > space, by someone who insists that everything exist within a > theistic intellectual space at all times. Too bad. 8-( > > But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? > > To let them talk? It was a rhetorical question. 8-) > > Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating > > about God? > > Apparently so... 8-). Apparently so, yet that doesn't mean that everyone is right. 8-) > > Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has > > created the universe? > > Not unless we want to contradict the doctorine of Free Will, which > many religions hold to be sacrosanct. It's safer to not get involved > in theistic arguments, except as necessary to point out that, by > making a scientific argument, one is not necessarily making a > theistic argument. It depends on what you mean by the doctrine of free will. If you mean that man is free to decide for himself the nature of reality, the notion of free will is absurd. On the other hand, Christianity teaches that man is enslaved to sin, so free will pretty much became irrelevent at the fall. Man still freely chooses what he wants to do, but the problem of course is what he wants to do. > I'm sorry that evolutionary theory challenges your religious doctrine. > At one time, your religion accepted the Earth-centric Ptolemeyic model > of the universe as true, and incorporated the idea into the religious > doctorine of a human-centric special creation. Now it no longer clings > to that idea. That's what got the church into trouble in the first place! Galileo never opposed the teaching of scripture, it was the Aristotelian philosophy that had invaded the church that he found himself up against. > In my opinion, it is best if religion stays out of the adoption of > scientific theory as doctorine. Scientific theories are, inevitably, > replaced with new theories, and they are unsuitable subjects for > doctorine. If a religion demands that the universe was created by > God, let it do so without attempting to tell God how He did it, and > allow people the intellectual freedom to speculate on the topic. It > may be the reason the people are there in the first place. With this I think I can agree. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909121150.X1838-100000>