Konspiracy Korner: Where Did We Come From?

.

Normally this subject on biology (hey, Rick!  Take the steering wheel wouldja!) would be too granular to be of general interest.  But in the third section below we may get some feedback as to which topics are of general interest, and in the first section below we have an important point in logic.

.........

First of all, we need to steer clear of circular reasoning.  "No REAL scientists reject evolution.  Why?  Because people who reject evolution have been brainwashed by Christians and are not real scientists."  This logic is false by definition.

And it extends to the idea of "No REAL thinkers are pro-life.  Why?  Because ... "  :- )

The logical response to someone arguing that macroevolution is dubious?  To debate them point-by-point.  Rather than dismissing them as brainwashed before we start the dialogue.

As you know, Dr. D's perspective in this thread is decidedly not Christian.  For one thing, he wasn't always a Christian, and it was his examination of these issues that caused him to become a Christian.  Believe me, when my fiancee came at me with this shtick, I was far more interested in Behe's Mousetrap than I was in Genesis.

But for another thing, the general question of "Who are we?  Where did we come from?  What is our place in the universe?" is assuredly of general interest, and we're trying to speak in that voice.

........

As to secular grounds for rejection of macroevolution:  Drs. David Belinski, Wolfgang Smith, Michael Denton, Colin Patterson, and Lee Spetner are among the 1000's of agnostics and atheists who do not believe that organisms can evolve across species.

Dr. Denton, an atheist with a Ph.D in biochem, said in 1995:

"There are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes. It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to swallow that all these things were built up by accumulative small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical claim, especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody can think of any credible explanation of how it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybody brushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet."

Dr. David Berlinski, an agnostic, said in 1996,

"Complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different? For many years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticism on the circumference of evolutionary thought. However, the burning fringe of criticism is now contracting..."

Dr. Patterson, to my knowledge completely secular, said in 2001, 

"Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge.  Many scientists will have to admit that in the last 10 years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Spetner said in 2001,

"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work."

.

Just a couple of examples.  

The moral of the story is.  We have to be careful in assuming that a minority view is coming from strictly emotion rather than from logic.  Many who disagree with me, might be more dispassionate than I am.  In fact, I'm sure that's true of some people.

.......

LR very adroitly brought up three subjects that relate to Intelligent Design:

(1) Abiogenesis:  could life have started without intervention.

(2) Macroevolution:  could animals evolve across species.

(3) Special Creation:  could energy and matter have "appeared" without intervention.

To those we add two more:

(4) The very existence of any laws of physics.  Why should there BE any?  Why should the universe "remember" the degree of gravitational force, from one moment to the next?  This, precisely, is why Einstein believed in God.

(5) The fine-tuned universe.  If the electromagnetic force constant were off by 1 part in quadrillions (?)  in either direction, life could not evolve.  Steven Hawking remarked, "I think there are clearly religious implications."  

Here is a list of 93 such constants.  It is the depth of this very list that has desperate anti-ID'ers retreating to the Cosmic Bubble Machine and its Infinite Universes.  But that obviously concedes total defeat within THIS universe.

If any of those topics are of interest to others (besides myself and LR), please advise.  We'll pursue ... at D-O-V.  :- )

.......

I think it is reasonable to argue the atheist position.  Those who wish to do so, recieve no animosity from me.  It's just that I have concluded, after 52 years of age, that life has purpose.  There's a reason we're here.  But does -- actually, SHOULD -- every American have a perfect right to argue the other side?  Absolutely.  If I were Absolute Dictator of America, I would encourage dissenters to make their very best arguments against mine. 

Thanks for bearing with us.  Following the PBS Documentary in this thread, it's back to our regularly-scheduled programming.  

My $.02,

Jeff

Blog: 

Comments

1

To #4 and #5:  

(4) The very existence of any laws of physics.  Why should there BE any?  Why should the universe "remember" the degree of gravitational force, from one moment to the next?  This, precisely, is why Einstein believed in God. 

But of course, in any universe that DOES exist there must be some physical laws. Without them there is, well, chaos.  In this universe, the one we can observe and attempt to measure, we see only one set of laws because they are the laws of THIS universe.  Of course, the possibilities are endless that other laws may exist other places, if they exist (see below).  

Gravity, on the other hand and as we understand it (and I'm pretty sure I have this right), is just a warping, a curvature, of space-time.  So without gravity, if I remember the way-out stuff from my readings, then the universe can't curve and it is flat, perfectly so, with objects lo longer "attracted" to each other.  The universe doesn't "remember" the gravitational force because there isn't anything to remember. Objects just respond to the warp around them.  

There shouldn't necessarily "be" any laws of physics.  But were there not, we wouldn't be pondering the issue right now.  There is an existential element to it, isn't there.   I've long been convinced there is a divine presence, benevolent and giving (as opposed to angry), because there must be one if we want to believe that right and wrong aren't simply relative.  Minus that spark and presence then morality is simply a a debating point:  Murder the Jews or a huge chunk of the Cambodian population?  Why not, if man is the ultimate authority and no greater truth exists. The ripples from such reasoning move outward, like a tsunami, and drown us all.  It can not be as that, and more so we should be glad it isn't. 

Of course, I'm no theologian.

5) The fine-tuned universe.  If the electromagnetic force constant were off by 1 part in quadrillions (?)  in either direction, life could not evolve.  Steven Hawking remarked, "I think there are clearly religious implications."  

Ah, but perhaps life didn't evolve, maybe many times.   Alan Guth, an MIT physicist, has suggested that new universes (known as “pocket universes”) are constantly being created, but they cannot be seen from our Universe.

In this view, “nature gets a lot of tries -- the Universe is an experiment that’s repeated over and over again, each time with slightly different physical laws, or even vastly different physical laws."

Guth and Robert Jaffe "have showed that universes quite different from ours still have elements similar to carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and could therefore evolve life forms quite similar to us, even when the masses of elementary particles called quarks are dramatically altered.

Jaffe and his collaborators felt that this proposed anthropic explanation should be subjected to more careful scrutiny, so they decided to explore whether universes with different physical laws could support life. Unlike most other studies, in which varying only one constant usually produces an inhospitable universe, they examined more than one constant.

Whether life exists elsewhere in our Universe is a longstanding mystery. But for some scientists, there’s another interesting question: could there be life in a universe significantly different from our own?

In work featured in a cover story in Scientific American, Jaffe and colleagues showed that universes quite different from ours still have elements similar to carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and could therefore evolve life forms quite similar to us. Even when the masses of the elementary particles are dramatically altered, life may find a way."

Find that stuff here:  http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/other-universes-may-operate...

Over my head,

Keith 

2

And without doubt, that idea of "no memory required" applies in many areas.

  • Why should 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
  • Why is a soap bubble round (molecules taking the shortest distance)
  • Why might curved space create gravity, if not its hair-fine amount of force
  • etc.

I remember being very satisfied with a prof's explanation of why electrons should take the innermost shell available to them.  So yeah.

.......

But on the other hand there are many things that do have numbers the universe seems to "remember" ...  

For example, why should electrons orbit protons at the distance they do? Why should the amount of electricity between them be what it is, and why should it be the right amount to balance the gravitational pull?  They exchange "virtual photons" to attract and repel each other; why a specific number of virtual photons?

And so forth.

......

I'm not a physicist either, not by a long shot, but Einstein was.  :- )   His bottom line is impressive to me, at least ...

3

What a subject amigo.  And C. S. Lewis wrote the #1 apologetics book of all time using that, and logic, and nothing else.  

That you should "promote" it above the topics I suggested is entirely reasonable.

....

You guys keep irresistibly drawing me in when I should be getting other stuff done.  But maybe that's the nature of the ThinkTankAble Force ....

4

Not sure if this topic belongs here or not... BUT, One hypothesis that is gaining momentum is the ancient alien option.

There is plenty of physical evidence that has been uncovered over the last 35 years that can not be easily explained by the experts - from granite and other harder stones being cut at exact 90 degree right angles and having grooves with less than 1% deviation cut into these stones, tunnel systems with 100's of rooms in eastern Europe that go down into the earth over 300 feet with airshafts and running water, 100 ton stones that have been lifted off the ground in dozens of places around the world that could not even be moved today by just one machine, perfectly round multi-ton stones in the jungles of Africa and South America, stone buildings and carvings that are carbon dated to 10,000 BC when supposedly everyone on earth was a caveman with no way to communicate, and etc... and the above does not get into all the expert building alignments to the stars / constellations / planets all around the world that were done without telescopes or land survey equipment... or all the reports of UFO's or ...

This subject is not my expertise or even my belief, BUT it does make the discussions for bothe evolution and creation a little more difficult or entertaining - depending on what you are looking for.   

5

Problemo is, as it applies to the origin of life ... you can only kick the can back down the road a little ways.  When did the first spacefaring aliens exist?  13 billion years ago?  Then they colonized the galaxy and seeded Earth?

You've still got the same problem of years-vs-DNA-improbability, the problem of matter's creation, etc etc ... actually the problem is sharper now because life had less time to evolve.

.......

The earth-ancient evidence for UFO intervention, however ... although I don't think it affects this topic ... is verrrry coool and maybe we should do some KK's.

I gingerly favor the idea of ancient human geniuses.  Who's to say that a Da Vinci didn't ignite a civilization that lasted 300 years and then vanished.  The Antykathera Mechanism and the Baghdad Battery are examples along this line.

But as you say, there are many ancient phenomena that are mind-boggling.  Almost into cognitive dissonance.  Good stuff TR.  :- )

6
lr's picture

As far as the guys you quoted above, to me it's pretty simple. Either you find the Dentons and the Behes of the world convincing, or you find the Goulds and the Dawkins of the world convincing. I've listened to the debates between Behe/Denton and Shermer/Miller and many others. I've heard the questions coming from the ID side, and I've heard the answers coming from the evolution side. The evolution side to me is far more convincing. To the vast majority of scientists it is far more convincing.

So rather than go point by point on that, I just want to throw this out on the topic of evolutionary versus divine morality. Why can't morality be relative? Because it would be unpleasant to some people if that were true? The evolutionary explanation for morality aligns with what we know of our history. To prove that, consider the sliding scale that is the history of human morality. Compare what we consider moral now, in 2015, to what people living 4000 years ago thought was moral. If morality were divinely endowed, why would it change? If it's just to stone someone to death for committing a sin 3000 years ago, why is unjust today? Forget timelines, there are places in the world today where stonings are considered morally justified. Different peoples adopt different moral principles. I've never for the life of me understood this argument that morality must not be relative. It clearly is relative. The examples are all around us.

The other argument against relative morality is that if we all accept it, then what's to stop everyone from killing and raping and burning and ..... Well lets say there are 7 billion people on the planet. Let's be conservative and say 5% accept moral relativity. That means there are 350 million people that kill and rape and burn and....All the Scandinavian countries must be rife with people committing atrocities. Actually the opposite is true. The thing that stops people from doing that isn't absolute moral truth. It's because the vast majority of human beings intrinsically understand that you don't want to do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. It's societal cooperation. It's been ingrained into us for tens and hundreds of thousands of years. It's not a fear of God's punishment that keeps you from punching strangers in line at the grocery store. It's fear of societal repurcusions. And cooperation.

7

Bu if there isn't a moral truth, then why is any rapacious/muderous behavior "wrong?"  Just because we agree it is?

But what if ISIS believes their televised beheadings aren't wrong?  Why should "we" oppose it if it is way over there?  Can't they choose their own cooperative truths?   Was Stalin wrong?  Pol Pot?  Just because we believe they were?  Upon what rock to we support that belief. 

Is right/wrong up to each of us to decide for ourselves?  Why listen to the cooperative voices around you; are they right because they are the majority?  Eeeeek, that road leads to places that give you Germany after 1933.  

If "moral truth" is only what we cooperatively agree it is, what happens to it when people cooperatively agree it isn't that.  Does any "truth" remain?

8
lr's picture

Why is murder wrong? Because we determine collectively that it is. And not just by a vote conducted every four years to confirm what is and isn't sinister. It's something embedded deep inside us, formed through eons of time.

We should oppose the ISIS beheadings because it causes tangible, real world human suffering. You'll notice that the 30's Germany example is one nation doing hideous things to its' citizens while most of the rest of the world codemned and/or fought against it. When something so obviously immoral happens, like that, or like nowadays with ISIS or Boko Haram kindapping and murdering and raping girls, 90%+ of the world condems it.

Right/wrong is a matter of opinion up to a certain point. Do you consider abortion immoral? How about incest? How about gambling? Now compare your answers to what they likely would have been 30 years ago, and compare that to your answers from 3000 years ago. Compare global consensus on these and other things from 1000 bc to today. Is denying gay people the right to be married immoral? That's one that is changing right before our eyes in real time across the world. The fact that human morality changes as new information becomes available is proof of the inherently relative nature of morality.

So in that sense, no, there is no such thing as absolute moral truth. You could maybe argue there are a few things so deeply hardwired into us so as to seem like absolute truths, but even then those "absolute" truths could've been molded or shaped differently in the past given different cirumstances of their development. So I would say absolute morality is an illusion. Humans make things right or wrong depending on when they happen to be born. 

9

You are arguing for moral relativism, yet you try to argue that certain acts (like ISIS beheadings) are definitely wrong. ISIS believes their acts are right, isn't that all that matters?

12
lr's picture

Reread my 2nd paragraph. Decreasing human suffering is the basis for human relative morality.

13

No where do you establish that reducing human suffering underpins moral relativity, you only mention suffering in a single sentence which is not supported by anything else you wrote. Moral relativity makes no judgment about human suffering because the whole premise of moral relativity is that nothing is inherently right or wrong. There could easily be (and probably are) cultures where suffering is seen as a test of a person's mettle or as an essential part growing as a person, and moral relatively doesn't make any value judgments about such beliefs.

14
lr's picture

that reducing human suffering IS the basis for relative morality. By that I mean as people we ought to derive our feelings on what's right and wrong by whether an action or idea promotes well being or increases suffering. I mean it's not MY argument, I didn't come up with it, I just think it's the best explanation given what we know about the history of morality.

This sentence: "Moral relativity makes no judgment about human suffering because the whole premise of moral relativity is that nothing is inherently right or wrong" confuses the argument that I'm presenting. It is true that moral relativity holds that no action is right or wrong in absolute terms, we agree on that. That doesn't mean we can't determine whether or not an action or idea harms or helps people. We use our conscience to determine whether someone is suffering or happy. Collective consciences, belonging for example to that of a group like ISIS, as you yourself have argued, can become warped or deranged. This is direct evidence of the relative nature of human morality. The relativist says of ISIS that it is a group or society that promotes the suffering of some of its' own people, and inflicts suffering on outsiders as well. Therefore, it is an immoral culture. Nothing tricky at all about how we arrive at that conclusion.

Moral relativity makes no judgment about human suffering because the whole premise of moral relativity is that nothing is inherently right or wrong - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/109438#comment-109438

Your point that there might be little hidden cultures that promote suffering, which you didn't provide any examples of, actually undermines your entire argument. Here's how. Point to a remote Amazonian tribe that views violence against women as a normal part of their culture, and it will be a clear example that morality can and does evolve differently in certain populations. In mainstream morality, what you and I are talking about, civilized society has much common ground. However, the existence of alternate moral codes among isolated or extreme societies is direct evidence that absolute morality is pure illusion.

16

...it would be a HIDEOUS place for us.  Dawkins thinks abortion should be legal for children up to the age of 2.  Dawkins thinks it's immoral to allow a human to live who has Downs Syndrome.  I'm rather glad more people don't find his philosophy attractive.

17
lr's picture

to be instituted, so this comes across as one giant straw man. Anyway, I googled Dawkins 2 year old abortion and nothing of the sort came up. Can you link me to where he says abortion up to 2 years of age should be acceptable?

On the other end of the spectrum, Mike Huckabee publicly supported the refusal of a 10 year old rape victim by her stepfather the opportunity to have an abortion. Maybe we all ought to envision a world where his world view was the norm and start railing against that...geez louise.

19
lr's picture

the fact that moral sensibilities flow and change like the banks of a river over time doesn't PROVE that divine morals don't exist. It does however make it superfluous. Why inject divine morality when the fact of morality changing with the times is evidence enough that we have at every time in history determined our own moral code? Under your worldview, divine morality, why would our attitudes ever change? And which divine morality is the right one? This seems like a lot of extra effort when the answer is staring us in the face.

20

"Why inject divine morality when the fact of morality changing with the times is evidence enough that we have at every time in history determined our own moral code?"

You are operating on the assumption that no cultures have tried to implement a divine moral code. This assumption may not be correct, and many cultures certainly believe that they are instituting divine morality. As to why implement a divine moral code, the answer is because such a code is believed to be superior to what humans would come up with on their own.

"Under your worldview, divine morality, why would our attitudes ever change?"

Because we have free will. That means we are free to accept or reject divine morality. Also, because our understanding of divine morality is imperfect, and because it may be revealed to us over time.

"And which divine morality is the right one?"

Presumably there is only one. If there are somehow actually multiple divine moralities, there is no way to answer that without analyzing them.

"This seems like a lot of extra effort when the answer is staring us in the face."

What answer is that?

21

Where is the culture which admires cowardice?  Where's the one that praises a man for turning on everybody who has been most loyal to him, and stabbing them in the back?  Where's the *culture* that holds parental love as a vice?  You might as well say that a Martian car might run very well on square wheels, as find a society that warmly holds Selfishness as a virtue and Love as a vice.

 You'll find that all people, everywhere, resent being lied to.

True, consciences can be "tweaked" by 5 degrees, if we spend decades arguing that Bad Behavior X is actually fine.  But LR is always going to react negatively if you lie to him!

That's an absolute, and it isn't man-made.  

There is no amount of "education" from Society X that will make LR appreciate it, when people are "unfair" to him.  We might change our views of what things are "unfair."  But why does he have this notion, "unfair"?  

He, and everybody else, will always hate being fired from a job because he was great at it, but he was embarrassing the boss's son.  A soldier in ancient Troy hated that too.  A chieftain of the Apaches hated it.  1,000 years from now, the Star Trek captain will hate it.

.....

CS Lewis wrote the #1 apologetics book ever, based on this single Zen observation.  You showed him one incontrovertible moral law, and he converted from atheist to Christian author.

There's a still small voice in everybody's head, the one that rings a little alarm bell when we get set to lie or cheat or harm another person.  "Guilt" and "shame" would have had no reason to evolve.  Everybody has a conscience, a little voice that tells us to be an unselfish person.  It's the most inarguable connection to the Divine:  our consciences.

22
lr's picture

in an evolutionary worldview must be randomly distributed around the globe. Sprinkle some cowardice in this culture, a penchant for backstabbing over here, some selfishness over there.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the D.E. explanation, these types of intrinsic values, loyalty, love, etc are built up over time as the communites that learn and incorporate the beneficial values tend to flourish and pass on these ideals to future generations. Show me a tribe that thought nothing for caring for fellow injured tribesman, and I'll show you a tribe that didn't last very long. Same goes for honesty, courage, love and on and on. That's how you develop common moral code. It was raised from the ground up as we first started forming small groups, then tribes, then villages, then towns. Do you think all humans living 100,000 years ago had the same moral code? No, it was a large scale trial and error.

What you're advocating ignores tens and hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. Or course we all hate being treated unfairly, but then so to do bonobo monkees. MANY types of experiments show they understand fairness, they like to share, will cooperate with each other to complete tasks, and so forth. The implications are obvious. Are you prepared to argue that they too have been endowed by divine moral code?

Here's a great TED talk about bonobos. Truly fascinating, must see TV.

http://www.wimp.com/bestidea/

And here's a link detailing how bonobos share with stangers and empathize.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-bonobos-great-ape...

23

REALLY interesting response.  Maybe we'll separate this out to a KK over at D-O-V.

Could you start by (1) describing how natural selection pressures a single animal (like a monkey) to sacrifice its own descendants for the good of the community?

And (2) whether you believe that [things that benefit the tribe] --- > would then be [absolute morals], not subject to personal preference?

Could an individual Bonobo monkey say, "You guys all prefer to share fruit that you fine.  But I prefer to not share my fruit and to steal your fruit, so I'll wind up with five healthy children compared to your three."

The whole point of moral relativity is that we should not conform to society's expectations, correct?  That we should arrive at our own values independently, without being "brainwashed" by tradition? 

(Edit to add, don't worry about it.  I'll let you and Cool Papa go if you're both so inclined.)

24

I also do not struggle to see how morals derive from collective, tribal behavior, that was produced by evolutionary pressure.  Much of our struggles derive from the difficult task of deciding who we define as in and who we define as outside of our tribes and the different expectation we have for ourselves and others depending on whether or not someone is a member of tribe.  While humans can manage many complex and convoluted structures and organizations, we communicate best in person in groups of about twelve or less and I believe this is because our genetics was hard wired for millenia to this scenerio. 

25

In the abstract, that makes sense in most cases:  the monkey who shares, gets to stay in the community.

In the specific, it's easy to spot solitary animals who do not face this pressure -- some species of felines and bears, for example.  And we are talking about more subtle selective pressures as opposed to the immediate benefit of keeping your progeny alive, correct?

And would you not acknowledge that with life's diversity, there should be pockets of human tribes with "anti-consciences" -- someplace where human beings naturally and consistently appreciate malicious lying, adultery, one man harming another's child, and so forth?

26

I'll give you my curious novice answer.  The way I look at evolution is different than it is often discussed in the vernacular.  Evolution is not an optimazation routine, it is a 'good enough' process where when things work 'good enough' they stick and they will persist unchanged until they lead to an evolutionary deficit. For brevity, call it the 'appendix principle'.

How does this address your question?  In principle, pre-humans were making babies in Africa, randomly tweeking the algorithm until *BOOM* it worked in a way that was mobile and extremely adaptive.  This means that evolutionary changes pre-dated the explosion of humans across the globe, so aboriginals are basically the same as Swedes.

Does that make it true? No, but I buy it nonetheless.  This is why we can have dogs and cats.  This is also why I differentiate physics and molecular biology from the theory of evolution by natural selection.  It's too easy to explain our current state of affairs with the theory of evolution by natural selection.  Give me an observation and I can come up with an explanation (rationalization).

27
lr's picture

I asked you something a few days ago and it has since gotten lost, I think. If you get a second, it is comment #37 (currently anyway), with the subject line "you had me until.." Really curious to hear your response. Thanks.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you have answered, I'll get to it now. Sorry, I'm blind apparently. Thanks!

28

;- ) This argument, 30 years ago, was the main one you heard ... since we're here, there have to be laws.  (Variant:  among a jillion possible universes, we see this one because if we didn't, we wouldn't be in the one perfect universe.)

It always sounded to me like ...

Well, suppose humans were able to make computers self-aware.  They "enlighten" three iMacs with ego, free will, guilt, and love.  Then the humans leave the state and never come back.  The computers whirrr away on their desktops forever.

iMac One:  "How did we become self-aware?"

iMac Two:  "If we weren't self-aware, we wouldn't be talking.  Our self-awareness is necessary.  Obviously nothing caused it."  

Question.  Why should Necessary = Uncaused?

... Nah.  I'll pass on that one.  :- )  

29
Sipester's picture

in this room PROVES Gods existence! :-)  

Actually, what it shows is how intimidating it can be to enter into this fray with you guys.  I've been reading this blog now for a few years without participating in the discussions mainly because the depth and breadth of the intellect here.  It is truly remarkable and humbling!  It would be difficult if not impossible for me to have anything but the utmost humility toward the people in this community.  

What I find interesting is that Einstein never believed in a personal God, whereas C.S. Lewis did.  Two brilliant men, who came up with two different conclusions.  How do you reconcile the tension and mystery between God choosing you (the elect), and humans having free will to choose Him?  It's a fascinating contrast.  Here's a thread on what Einstein believed:  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html 

I also tend to side with you Doc on the idea of ancient super geniuses.  It may be that our genes/dna has been corrupted over time, which would fit nicely with the 2nd law of thermodynamics; and also fly in the face of macroevolution.  Although the intelligence of the people here on a BASEBALL BLOG shoots that theory way down :-)  

 

 

 

30

Personality out of impersonal forces? I think that takes a real leap of faith In the power of...stuff. So far as morality, I think the Pope had it right in evoking the Golden Rule. 

31
lr's picture

Regarding the four guys you quoted.

Colin Patterson, whom you attributed that quote to in 2001, died in 1998. He wasn't overtly religious from what I can tell, and he did say this too.

"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context."

Lee Spetner was a Jewish Creationist, and has written things in his books that bring about obvious questions about his intentions. Things like ...

"...I met the evolutionary theory in a serious way, and I found it hard to believe. It clashed not only with my religious views, but also with my intuition about how the information in living organisms could have developed."

Michael Denton identifies as agnostic, not atheist (a huge distincition by the way), but his opinions on fine tuning makes it pretty clear he believes in at the very least a deistic entity.

Berlinski is about the closest thing you'll find to a true agnostic ID proponent, though that distinction is tenuous as he doesn't actually outright support ID, and he too has said things that indicate he adheres to some kind of religious belief, namely on objective morality grounds. He also collaborated with Ann Coulter for her book on science and evolution. So that's interesting.

The point here isn't just to quibble on the details on these guys. The point is that when trying to find the most scientifically literate of dissenters to Darwinian evolution, you're always left picking from guys with obvious religious backgrounds and/or guys that make a career out of cherry picking certain things they don't like about evolution while avoiding the vast amounts of solid, non controversial facets of D.E. that make it so widely accepted within the actual scientific community.

32

That reply is outrageous.  I don't mean it emotionally.  I mean it dispassionately.

You repeat the worldview I just refuted, without addressing my refutation in any way at all.  You state that (1) Michael Denton's comments are worthless because you think he believes in a deistic entity.  So (2) He isn't a "real scientist" because his conclusions prove he started out biased.  

We refuted this circular reasoning very simply and clearly.  

But you simply repeat the same information:  "Only the person who examined evolution and concluded there is no God was the 'real scientist.' "    

..............

You don't deal with these scientists' IDEAS -- you, as a non-scientist!?, simply rule these people unscientific on your own authority?  This is the common pattern for an uneducated skeptic:  to attack real scientists as unscientific to avoid dealing with the scientists' ideas.

I don't have a Ph.D in natural science any more than you do.  But I am willing to engage ideas without EVER attempting ad hominems to avoid a problem.  (My pointing out skeptics' typical lack of education is not an ad hominem; it is comparable to a lay patient calling a doctor a quack.  The layperson isn't in a position to judge that.  Doctors must be judged by their peers.)

LR, have you noticed the credentialed scientists here (Dr. K, Dr. Grumpy, etc) don't behave as you do?  That they don't rule other scientists' ideas out of bounds because of bias?

Sorry amigo.  I'm done here.  As with last time, we reached the point at which further progress isn't possible.  I'll give you the last word.

33
lr's picture

There are thousands of atheist/agnostic scientists that either promote ID or believe D.E. didn't occur or both. Correct? Ok. You then gave 4 examples, 2 of which are categorically false. One of the guys was a Jewish Creationist BEFORE he was a scientist. Two of the other guys have beliefs and work for organizations (Discovery Institute) that bring into question the claim that they are atheist or agnostic. The other guy I couldn't find much info on. You labeled all 4 as either agnostic or atheist to bolster your claim that there are "1000's of agnostics and atheists who do not believe that species can evolve across species". These examples are untrue.

The other guy you mentioned as an agnostic/atheist, Wolfgang Smith, was a traditionalist Roman Catholic, and wrote articles arguing for geocentrism in the mid 20th century. Yes, really.

In examining the 4 cases you presented, I wasn't claiming "BECAUSE he's a Christian or Jew or Deist we can flat out reject whatever they say". I'm merely refuting your claim that these 4 guys are completely neutral agnostic/atheist scientists. They aren't. My takeaway, which I gave, is that when trying to locate I.D. scientists or scientists who reject D.E. you are REGULARLY choosing from a pool of scientists who aren't arguing from neutral ground. That was my argument 2 days ago, and today it is the same.

Calling me an uneducated skeptic given the four examples you provided at the top is just nonsense. I have intentionally avoided getting into essay long back and forths regarding the specifics of the cases argued by the Dentons and the Behes of the world. I've tried that kind of tactic before on this site, and the conversations either get buried by six new articles or cut off in the name of moving along. I've been told "people don't want to see a conversation get dragged out" to paraphrase, by you specifically (even when I was being nice), so I'm hesitant to get into any technical conversation with you. If you'd actually like to see just how uneducated this skeptic is, I'd be more than happy to provide a glimpse.

Lastly, I actually had a question for the "real scientist", as you put it, in this thread engaging him on a point of concern I had with something he said. You'll notice it wasn't dismissive at all.

1000's of agnostics and atheists who do not believe that organisms can evolve across species - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/109449#comment-109449
1000's of agnostics and atheists who do not believe that organisms can evolve across species - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/109449#comment-109449
34

Science is an approach to understanding that emphasizes careful observation, a belief that patterns and correlation reflect organizing principles, and that these principles should be the foundation for models that explain and ideally predict observations made beyond the boundaries within which the initial observations were made and the organizing principles identified.

I started with this irritatingly pedantic preamble because I think it helps frame my commentary on the post and the comments that have followed.

  1. Evolution by natural selection is disputable, all ideas are disputable. I am not an expert in evolutionary biology, so I cannot speak in detail to concerns with the theory of evolution by natural selection, but the times that I have looked into the refutations of evolution, I have not been persuaded. Again, I make no claims to a comprehensive investigation our deep knowledge, but I remain unconvinced. Keep in mind this is not so surprising; the theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive, not predictive, and sufficiently general that it is very difficult to falsify.
  2. Evolution by natural selection attempts to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life – whereby I mean all living creatures, when I speak of life. If one requires humans to be separate from the evolution of other creatures, to require the mechanics of the formation of the human species to be distinct from other species, then yes, evolution by natural selection does conflict with some religious beliefs.
  3. A belief in evolution by natural selection presents no conflict with a belief in God or any other higher power. I do believe that patterns in observations present constraints on what can be called true or verified – what I have called a belief in science – does place limits on God. Such a God would have created a universe knowable by the intellect imbued upon us by said Being.
  4. Ignorance makes a poor foundation for a scientific theory. A failure to conceive of how an unguided search – evolution by natural selection – can lead to remarkable levels of self-assembled order does not provide the basis for a scientific theory. The concept of emergence – ‘simple’ building block interacting through known forces leading to unpredictable structures and properties – is a common place occurrence for non-living matter as well. In many such systems, the limits of our ability can be attributed to technical limitations. We can write out the equation that would predict the behavior, but we do not know how to solve it. This concept can be applied to living systems as well.

Now for an aside. I am a Ph.D. chemist, though by no means a biochemist. I state this just to reflect my bias. The most important discovery of the second half of the 20th century is the identification of the biomolecular machinery that executes evolution by natural selection. It is the partial mastery of this machinery that gives up the ability to hijack the inner workings of simple living creatures like e. coli for the benefit of human health and intellectual curiosity.

35

FWIW, I don't find you pedantic in the least.  More like anti-pedantic.  I think you're an eminently reasonable man and quite self-effacing for somebody with your accomplishments.

Agree with you on everything but one line, I think.  Am sure that means a lot to you ;- )

....

1.  Fair enough.  And the debate proposition here is more along the lines of "It's not stupid/crazy to dispute macroevolution."  ... hold it.  That was pedantic.  ...

2.  An outstanding point.  How many SUB-species of life are there?  Have never met anybody who doubts natural selection as a force in nature.  Nobody knowledgable.

3.  Couldn't agree more with the first part.

3a.  Your last line ... that's quite an assumption, isn't it?  Didn't Einstein hold the diametrically-opposite view?  That we're doing well if we can catch a glimpse into the mind of God?  But it would be a nourishing topic for a KK.

Hey, anytime Dr. K wants to take the steering wheel in the KK's...

4.  On emergence, within non-living matter ... taking it about 10 parsecs farther than you must have meant it ... are you familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's theories on Morphic Resonance?  It's what he uses for the apparent "learning ability" of compounds like zinc atoms and quartz crystals.  He thinks in terms of inorganic nature forming "habits."  

As a layman, I would understand this kind of "learning ability" (certain crystals learning to form quickly once they are first formed in a human laboratory) to fall outside the selection process you mention.  Would love to hear your remarks, if you're so inclined.

36

Regarding your 3.a., it is absolutely a big assumption and as such I wouldn't quibble if you rejected it.  I'm not sure it would differ with Einstein since I am not knowledgable about his opinions on metaphysics.  What I wanted to highlight is that it is an enormous assumption to believe the universe is "knowable" -- the term used by Carl Sagan in Cosmos.  I make that leap of faith.  If I were also to make the leap of faith that God created the universe, I would want to link the two assumptions.  The universe is "knowable" to humankind because our Creator (I know you are stickler about capitalization when discussing God. I am presuming Creator should be capitalized.) chose it to be so.  That is all I'm after.  If you also presume that our Creator made us in his image, linking all three leaps of faith does mean when we understand the universe we capture a glimmer of the mind of God.

I know nothing of Rupert Sheldrake or his theory,  but inorganic matter does form "habits".  The physical sciences aspire to understanding the patterns of physical phenomena (habits, if you will) within the confining, but powerful, constraints of physical laws expressed mathematically (Newton's Laws, Maxwell's equations, Schroedinger's equation, the second law of thermodynamics).

37

To reinforce your attitude from my own paradigm ... When you look at Psalm 19 (e.g.), it states that the Creation reveals MUCH about God.

  • Artistic talent, taste for beauty, etc.  (God is not a computer like Skynet or the Matrix)
  • Goodness and severity, e.g. predators, the uncompromising conscience, etc
  • Love, such as mothers' love, even Bonobo monkeys sharing, cats purring, etc
  • Intelligence, obviously (the laws of nature are often beyond our comprehension)
  • Our dependence on Him
  • That He cares about right behavior (consciences)
  • His love for man (the "blue earth" seen from space ... you know what I mean)
  • That He exists :- )
  • etc etc etc

Personally I would understand the Bible as saying that for a person such as yourself to emphasize this factor, Divine revelation through creation .... even make it the exclusive basis of an investigation of the Divine ... is ABSOLUTELY reasonable and healthy.  In fact I believe it to be part of God's intent towards man, that he emphasize this factor in his (obligatory) search for the Divine.

My own paradigm states that an Aborigine or ancient tropical "savage" was held accountable to God solely on the basis of his inferences out of nature, along with inferences from his conscience.

So, 90% overlap between our paradigms, from my point of view.

38
lr's picture

you said "the theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive, not predictive, and sufficiently general that it is very difficult to falsify". Do you mean that it can't predict what will evolve in the future? Sure, in that sense you are correct, but that last part, "that it is very difficult to falsify" makes me think you meant it hasn't been incredibly predictive from its' inception. Darwin made a lot of predictions, many of which were later discovered to be true. If none of his predictions were found to be accurate, wouldn't that sufficiently falsify it as a scientific theory? He didn't just make vague predictions, either. One of the most famous is that he predicted a specific type of moth with an extremely long tongue that must exist to pollenate a specific type of orchid. Seems obvious to us today, but at the time it was a very novel prediction. Nearly 20 years after his death X. Morganii Praedicta, aptly named, was discovered, and has since been confirmed to pollenate exactly the type of orchid he predicted. That's just one example, but a good one.

39

Sorry for the slow response and you have made be reconsider my position. I believe I need to clarify what I meant my prediction, since I agree that Darwin predicted there should be evidence in the fossil record of species intermediate between chimpanzees and homo sapiens, and fossils consistent with that stance have been found. 

This may just be my prejudice, but I do not see this weight of evidence in the same light as other areas of science.  My understanding is that the direct connection between Lucy and humans is controversial, even to people that do not doubt the general theory of evolution.  This is different from, say, Einstein's prediction that light is bent by gravity or Dirac prediction of the anti-electron. 

I guess my summary would be, reconstucting the past is easier than predicting the future, so the theory of evolution by natural selection meets a different standard of proof than the quantum theory does.  Just to be clear, I think the weight of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection is compelling and I have no problem with intellectual concerns with it.

40
lr's picture

It is fair to say that the quality of the fossil record isn't as absolute, 100%, slam dunk, air tight as the probabilty of quantum mechanics describing reality or of the theory of gravity. We don't have every intermediate that exists between us and our ancestors 3.5 million years ago, which is when Lucy was around. When it comes to determining exactly which species a fossil is, and where it fits on the tree of life, there are sometimes debates over where exactly to place it. Is the jaw larger, like that of a gorilla? Is the spine more curved like a chimpanzee? Is it bipedal? So in that sense, agreed, it isn't on the same level as gravity. That doesn't mean it isn't strong, just that it isn't a 1 in 10000000000 probability like quantum mechanics is.

Where you get a really compelling case is when you start combining other fields to the fossil record. DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, biogeopraphy and others. It's a cumulative effect. Take one field on its own, yeah, there may be room for interpretation on occasion. It's the staggering scope and range of independent lines of evidence that makes D.E. such a strong theory.

So you do agree then, when Darwin first introduced it 150 years ago, there were many potential tests of falsifiability?

41

"reducing human suffering IS the basis for relative morality. By that I mean that as people we ought to derive our feelings on what's right and wrong by whether an action or idea promotes well being or increases suffering."

The whole premise of moral relativity is that there is no true right or wrong, only what each society decides for themselves to promote their goals. There for, you have no basis for saying what others ought to do. That you personally think humanity should promote well being or reduce suffering is just your own subjective opinion which moral relativity expressly teaches has no inherent value to anyone else. Further, what constitutes "well being" is entirely subjective and also something that each person will have their own personal views about. Same goes for what measures are appropriate means of promoting well being.

If a society decides that elimating those who don't subscribe to their religion promotes well being, and beheading non-believers is an effective way to achieve this, moral relativity does not and can not say that this is wrong. So your saying that we should oppose (how?) ISIS' barbaric acts has no basis in moral relativity.

"Point to a remote Amazonian tribe that views violence against women as a normal part of their culture, and it will be a clear example that morality can and does evolve differently in certain populations. In mainstream morality, what you and I are talking about, civilized society has much common ground. However, the existence of alternate moral codes among isolated or extreme societies is direct evidence that absolute morality is pure illusion."

Again, that people have different beliefs does not mean that there isn't a divine morality, just as the fact that people have disagreed about whether the Earth is the center of the universe doesn't mean there isn't an ultimate truth of the matter.

42
lr's picture

This sentence: "Moral relativity makes no judgment about human suffering because the whole premise of moral relativity is that nothing is inherently right or wrong" confuses the argument that I'm presenting. It is true that moral relativity holds that no action is right or wrong in absolute terms, we agree on that. That doesn't mean we can't determine whether or not an action or idea harms or helps people. We have many different means to determine whether someone is suffering or happy. Collective consciences, belonging for example to that of a group like ISIS, as you yourself have argued, can become warped or deranged. This is direct evidence of the relative nature of human morality. The relativist says of ISIS that it is a group or society that promotes the suffering of some of its' own people, and inflicts suffering on outsiders as well. Therefore, it is considered an immoral culture. Nothing tricky at all about how we arrive at that conclusion.

Suffering and well being are "entirely objective"? When ISIS kidnaps, binds, tortures and beheads someone against their will, you're arguing that we have no basis at all, zero, to label that as inflicting suffering? How about that the victim felt pain, fear, misery, injustice, etc. Those feelings speak nothing to whether suffering or well being occurred?

"Again, that people have different beliefs does not mean that there isn't a divine morality, just as the fact that people have disagreed about whether the Earth is the center of the universe doesn't mean there isn't an ultimate truth of the matter"

It's not just "beliefs" as you label them. It's a different moral code, which goes deeper than superficial beliefs. The existence of different and in some cases incompatible moral codes among different peoples spells out clearly the relative nature of morality. Don't know how this point continues to be missed. People argued about the center of the Earth before science came in and gave an answer, and we're seeing that now with morality. It's not nearly as far along as geocentricism, but a lot has been discovered to shed light on the origins of human and animal morality. I posted in response to Jemanji in this thread last night a few links that talk about bonobo monkeys and their ability to exhibit and understand moral behavior, which is another strong support for the evolving nature of morality. Check em out.

43

"The relativist says of ISIS that it is a group or society that promotes the suffering of some of its' own people, and inflicts suffering on outsiders as well. Therefore, it is considered an immoral culture."

No, that's what you sayMoral relativity says nothing whatsoever about the significance of people's well being or suffering, that is your own personal belief. Moral relativity specifically states that no culture can be considered immoral in any absolute sense.

"Suffering and well being are "entirely objective"? When ISIS kidnaps, binds, tortures and beheads someone against their will, you're arguing that we have no basis at all, zero, to label that as inflicting suffering? How about that the victim felt pain, fear, misery, injustice, etc. Those feelings speak nothing to whether suffering or well being occurred?"

We have a basis but not an objective one. First off, you need to define what you mean by "well being" and "suffering", and whatever you come up with will be your own subjective opinion. Second, you need to come up with a way to measure these qualities you defined, and what you think is the correct way will be your own subjective opinion.

"The existence of different and in some cases incompatible moral codes among different peoples spells out clearly the relative nature of morality."

No, it only tells us how morals are applied. It tells us nothing about whether or not there is a divine morality.

44
lr's picture

It is true that there are different variations of moral relativity. Each contain different ways or dealing with the differences in morality between different groups of people. The one I have argued is evolutionary moral relativity, which is that morality arises in humans through tens and hundreds of thousands of years of trial and error. The evidence for this is getting stronger year after year. The argument about suffering and well being being used as benchmarks to determine the morality of an action comes from Sam Harris, who may have adopted it somewhere further down the line. So when you say ME, no, I'm arguing for that model of moral relativity.

And you keep saying this: "Moral relativity specifically states that no culture can be considered immoral in any absolute sense". I agreed to that long ago. I'm not saying otherwise. You are taking that and twisting it to mean something it doesn't mean later in your argument.

M.R. claims there is no absolute moral code. TRUE. Therefore we have no tools at our disposal to judge morality for ourselves. FALSE. That's exactly what moral relativity is, the determination for oneself what right and wrong is. Well you'll say aha!, once you arrive at your own set of moral codes, they are entirely subjective and meaningless. WRONG. I am not offering absolute terms, but rather a set of societal guidelines that are useful in judging what types of behavior a community or country wants to tolerate. Different peoples have different morals. No ones is true in an absolute sense. They evolve and change over time. Everything we know about the history of morality on this planet leads us overwhelmingly to the fact that it IS a fluid thing. You may choose to hold the view that peoples attitudes change over time but a set of absolute moral codes exist outside of that, but that is purely an add on. It doesn't explain anything about how morals change and develop in the natural world, among peoples and among animals. It cannot be proven incorrect. It is not testable. It just creates further complication to the issue.

As I've argued, measures like well being and suffering are tangible things. Imagine the worst possible suffering on one end of the scale, and pure blissful peaceful happiness at the other end. Under this M.R. view, actions done to move to the right side are good, actions done that move the needle to the left are bad. I understand this isn't an exact, perfect way to measure it, but rather a jumping off point for how we could start going about determining what constitutes an immoral act or a moral one.

45
Nathan H.'s picture

Leaving aside the group's discussion around solving the issue of ethics... ::smile::

My journey has evolved from:

  1. Rabid Christian
  2. Rabid Anti-thiest
  3. Moderate Secularist
  4. Moderate Diest
  5. Moderate Modified Buddhism

The more information I consume about the world/universe around us the less sure I am of anything except for how wonderful and terrible (not as in, terrible-AWFUL but more, like, terrible-INCOMPREHENSIBLE) it all is.

The latest theory is that the universe is likley a 3 dimensional hologram of a 1 or 2 dimensional plane where time/space are all smooshed together and made distinct only by...frequency? Paging Plato's Allegory of the Cave, amiright?

Big Bang = questionable, IMO. The laws (ha!) of conservation of energy say that energy cannot come from nothing...except when the entirety of all energy that will ever exist was born.

Intelligent Design = Devistating, if true. Any intelligence that could INTENTIONALLY DESIGN the reality that we're co-experiencing would be so incomprehensibly beyond the scope of my understanding that I still don't know how I would respond, even after pondering it for a good, long while.

I have a tendancy, lately, to relate to the idea of the universe attempting to understand itself through karmic lessons and the idea that our bieng is being channelled through our bodies but ulitimately exist outside of it, together, in one big mass of divided selfhoods. There are issues with this idea (inconsistant population over the years, human DNA having changed by at least 7% over time, less than ideal engineering of the human body, etc.) and, as you can tell, my views are constantly evolving (heh) so I ain't married to the idea. But it has some weight to it.

It brings the idea that animals can evolve, not physically, but spiritually. I've known some animals that were more self-aware than others; it certanly doesn't seem like a binary designation but more of a sliding scale.  

It brings the idea that we humans can evolve spiritually as well. I've experienced a wide range of personalities that were not entirely nurture-drivin, if you get my meaning.

It brings the idea that we're all really ultimately one and that things done to another are done to oneself, which makes much more sense in this context as opposed to being a metephorical dictum given from a higher-being (whatever that might be).

It's crazy, man. I've never taken psycadellics but sometimes I'm curious as to what I would experience if I did. Why is the default form for an animal bilateral? Where are the aliens? How do you explain placebo effects? Why is our moon exactly the size and distance it is to be the exact same size as the sun from our perspective? What happened to our ancient civilizations that we only have pregnant whispers of evidence of today?

I come for the baseball, Doc; I stay for the discussions. ::smile::

46

That was a Pink Floyd post.  Originality and virtuosity, as in.  You *insist* you've never taken psychedelics?  Could we at least take ours while reading you?

We've gotten a good bit of feedback like your last line.  Didn't Merry see the Treant and tell Pippin "don't encourage it"?  Think we might have to mosh about 5 D-O-V posts off of yours...

If I weren't convinced of Christianity for other reasons, my worldview might very well be right around the general territory you laid out.  Great stuff.

47

Let's not equate habit-forming forces with intelligence. And let's not confuse personality with illusion. Every argument against God convinces me more there is a God. The amount of intelligence needed to muster up a good agnostic/atheistic argument - or an argument on morality or ethics,  this capacity doesn't originate from man, created by impersonal, blind forces. It doesn't come randomly from unintellig-able forces. Man either points to God, or man is God: the intelligent being that shapes and gives meaning to the Universe. So, the logic that I use to live my life moves me to being a proponent of ID. And I stay for the science. A lot of us appreciate Discovery.org because they affirm this simple but powerful observation.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.