The Darwin/Trotsky connection

Creation Magazine ^ | Barry Woolley

[RegulatorCountry]

I’m aware of the meaning of metaphor, atlaw.

So, you see the “tree of life” and “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” as metaphorical. Alright, then. There are also such trees in Heaven, as I noted in my reply to you yesterday evening. Are these trees metaphorical as well? Or, do you view Heaven as a metaphor?

I’m also quite curious as to where factuality enters into your religious worldview, if at all.

[count-your-change]

I trust that you did mean what you said, mea culpa, I didn't understand what you said.

“Some of your posts seem to be YEC Bible thumping. Others seem to be more reasoned. I was trying to identify which camp you are in.”

One...I accept the Bible without reservation as God's Word.
Yes, it does at times use the devices that all languages use, metaphor, parable, etc., and where it does the context
or comparison with the rest of the Bible makes clear.

Two...I think the “In the beginning” allows for an earth older than, much older than 6000 years or so. How older? I don't think anyone can say with certainty.

Three...Because of One above I cannot accept evolution, Darwinism, neo-darwinism, whatever it is called, as fact. And I don't think calling it ‘science’ turns it into fact or reality. In fact, I believe Darwinism is nihilist at it's core.

The YEC folks make some sound arguments and those I support, some are not so sound and those I don't support.

So of what ‘camp’ am I in your view?

[betty boop]

If we could agree that these are 100% philosophy we could have a great time.

LOLOL FreeDumb! I couldn't agree to your terms! Some of the "philosophy" that you're seeing in my recent posts is coming straight out of the mouths of scientists and mathematicians.

There is a tendency nowadays to put science in one box, and philosophy in another box. Then the game is to keep the two boxes "separate." I declare this is impossible! Science has borrowed so much from philosophy over the millennia that to strip out all its influence would destroy science. Without Natural Law theory, without a rigorous epistemology, without a theory of causation, for example, where exactly would science be?

Thank you for your kind words, dear brother in Christ! I'm looking forward with pleasure to our future communications.

[freedumb2003]

>>So of what ‘camp’ am I in your view?<<

No offense, friend, but you are in the anti-science camp (but not in the YEC camp so we can always applaud incremental advances).

TToE has billions of supporting artifacts across hundreds of years and millions of practitioners. It is one of the best understood Scientific Theories in the entirety of Life and Natural Sciences.

Rejecting it is the same as rejecting chemistry, physics, astronomy, and the entirety of the natural sciences.

I urge you to use your ability to think and reason and reevaluate your position.

God gave us good brains for a reason.

[freedumb2003]

As much as I enjoy philosophy, it should remain in its own “box” — science operates in a physical realm. TToE is a reasoned physical explanation of billions of data and involves little philosophy.

Science tells us “what.” Philosophy (and her sister, theology) deals with “why.”

I do hope you are having a wonderful and blessed day. Given your upbeat and spiritual outlook, I suspect most days are like that for you anyway :)

[atlaw]

I’m aware of the meaning of metaphor, atlaw.

Forgive me if I assumed otherwise. I only made that assumption because what is transparently metaphoric to me is not to you.

I’m also quite curious as to where factuality enters into your religious worldview, if at all.

"Factuality" is all around us. It is the tangible reality of God's creation, which includes and accommodates matter, abstraction, metaphor, et al.

There are no tangible "trees of the knowledge of good and evil" or "life," just as there are no tangible "hearts of stone" or fog banks coming "on little cat feet." When presented with such images, I am alerted to the author's intent to convey something more meaningful and nuanced than mere categorization of matter. And my "religious worldview" requires neither denial of tangible reality nor denial of such self-evident literary devices.

And yes, Heaven itself is necessarily an abstraction, and is necessarily presented as metaphor. "Walls" and "gates" and "vaults" of Heaven, etc., are metaphoric efforts to convey an otherwise incomprehensible abstraction that Christ Himself references as "not of this world." In short, I don't believe Heaven is a really spiffy Branson Missouri any more than I believe God is a giant Burl Ives floating around in space.

Not much else to say, really.

[betty boop]

As much as I enjoy philosophy, it should remain in its own “box” — science operates in a physical realm.

So does Natural Law, a philosophical idea; but since Natural Law is not "physical," therefore it cannot be science. But I never claimed it was. My claim is rather that science couldn't be science if it were not rooted in Natural Law. I.e., Natural Law is more fundamental than science itself. Indeed, it is a respected view that science is the offspring of Natural Law.

Robert Rosen, a mathematical physicist and theoretical biologist, argues (to me quite convincingly) that the Natural Law framework is at the heart and root of science. In Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, he wrote:

A modeling relation between causal entailment in a natural system and syntactic entailment in a formal one [i.e., generally, a scientific theory] provides a concrete embodiment of the concept of Natural Law....

Natural Law makes two separate assertions about the self and its ambience [i.e., the totality of everything external to the mind, or "objective reality"]:

1. The succession of events or phenomena that we perceive in the ambience is not entirely arbitrary or whimsical; there are relations (e.g., causal relations) manifest in the world of phenomena.

2. The relations between phenomena that we have just posited are, at least in part, capable of being perceived and grasped by the human mind, i.e., by the cognitive self.

Science depends in equal parts on these two separate prongs of Natural Law. The first, which says something about the ambience, asserts that it is in some sense orderly enough to manifest relations or laws. Clearly, if this is not so, there can be no science, also no natural language, and most likely, no sanity either. So it is, for most of us at any rate, not too great an exercise of faith to believe this.

The second part of Natural Law says something about ourselves. It asserts that the orderliness of the ambiance is (to some unspecified extent) discernable to, and even more, is articulable by, the self. It asserts then that the posited orderliness in the ambience can be matched by, or put into correspondence with, some equivalent orderliness within the self.

In other words, the first part of Natural Law is what permits science to exist in the abstract. The second part of Natural Law is what allows scientists to exist. Clearly, concrete science requires both. [p. 58f]

Just an idle question, Freedumb: How would you define "the physical realm," which you argue is science's sole concern?

[freedumb2003]

As a precis, let me note that a theoretical biologist means yu are already starting in the realm of the philosophical. Establishing a philosophical milieu is not the same as establishing a philosophical framework.

>>Just an idle question, Freedumb: How would you define “the physical realm,” which you argue is science’s sole concern? <<

The physical realm is that which can be observed, measured or extrapolated with physical properties. The concept of Evolution, when compared with the physical data, is a physical extrapolation which fits the data almost perfectly. It is a physical answer to a physical question.

By way of contrast, “angels intervened” or “aliens intervened” concepts are not physical (in the first case) or unsupported by the data (in the latter). They may indeed be “right” (ala “2001”) but that state of correctness is both unusable and unsupportable in the physical realm.

God has decided to let His Universe speak for itself — I would not presume to debate His profound judgment.

[hosepipe]

[ The concept of Evolution, when compared with the physical data, is a physical extrapolation which fits the data almost perfectly. It is a physical answer to a physical question. ]

Of course, it does..
Science fiction or fact, must be very logical...
Reality need not be logical at all..;

[freedumb2003]

>>Reality need not be logical at all..;<<

LOL!

“And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

[RegulatorCountry]

I take it you're fond of Branson. I've never been. Sounds sort of touristy to me. Burl Ives is only known to me as the voice of a few children's animated Christmas specials. Is there any particular reason you associate Burl Ives with your concept of deity?

Rather than dwell on what God and Heaven is not in your estimation, perhaps you'd be so kind as to lose the negative, and provide a more positive description of what you believe.

The reason I ask is that the metaphorical space in your religious worldview appears to be rather broad and sweeping, and I'm hoping to understand at what point literalism enters into the picture for you, if at all. I'm coming from a Biblical literalist point of view as you're aware, and so my beliefs should be reasonably obvious to anyone familiar with the Bible. Yours still remain something of a mystery, other than not Branson, MO and not Burl Ives floating on a cloud. Thanks!

[betty boop]

As a precis, let me note that a theoretical biologist means yu are already starting in the realm of the philosophical. Establishing a philosophical milieu is not the same as establishing a philosophical framework.

But isn't that the very thing that Darwin did — establish (perhaps a better word would be 'instantiate') a philosophical "milieu/framework" (is there a dime's worth of difference between them?) for his theory of evolution? That philosophical framework, at bottom, is a synthesis of the doctrines of materialism, mechanism, and naturalism.

You said something very interesting, Freedumb: You suggested that scientific theorists are engaging in philosophy in the production of their theories. That appears true enough. Yet by your reasoning this would disqualify their insights as science. Well jeepers, Darwin was a theorist. Do we disqualify his theory as science because it's too philosophical?

There's another main type of scientist — the experimentalist. He could care less about the whys and wherefores of theory; all he cares about is its practical efficacy in making useful, testable predictions. Are you suggesting that the only "true" scientist is the experimentalist — because he doesn't care about the whys and wherefores?

But this would be to make the entire enterprise of science senseless....

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

freedumb2003,

1. The universe would continue doing what it does whether or not there were intelligent beings capable of attempts at understanding it.

2. Science is just the positing and testing of theories; which are just simplified models of what the universe is actually doing. These theories are ultimately formulated as mathematical functions.

3. All of math is based ultimately on set theory.

4. All of set theory is based on logic.

5. Logic is in the realm of philosophy, and not of science.

Without philosophy there is no science.

Sorry to burst your simple-minded quasi-empirical balloon.

If you were a true empiricist, then you would know that there is little that you can certainly know, and among the things that are least certain are those things that you see with your own eyes.

[betty boop]

By way of contrast, “angels intervened” or “aliens intervened” concepts are not physical (in the first case) or unsupported by the data (in the latter).

p.s.: Well personally I do not have recourse to “'angels intervened' or 'aliens intervened'” concepts. That's a red herring my friend!

What I'm trying to get at is this: What is most fundamental in the biological universe (so to speak)? Is it "matter" — i.e., subatomic particles — or is it the relations that obtain between them, and with the living system of which they are the constituent parts?

Particle behavior per se tells you virtually nothing about the organized, functional behavior of organic systems in nature.

Then there is the seemingly relentless focus on mechanism, evinced in the so-called "machine metaphor." (I.e., living systems are "meat machines.") Machines are "closed systems." And yet it appears that living systems must be "open systems".... Otherwise, they could never "overcome" the Second Law of TD....

In short, I'm persuaded that the Newtonian Paradigm is the wrong model for understanding living systems. Yet Darwin was operating exclusively within that Paradigm.

Just some things I've been ruminating lately....

[betty boop]

Absolutely brilliant summary, who_would_fardels_bear!

You hit that one right over the Green Monster, and right out of the ballpark.... HOME RUN!!! Kudos!!!

IMHO FWIW.

Thank you ever so much for writing!

[freedumb2003]

Well, I am in for a little fun this evening...

>>1. The universe would continue doing what it does whether or not there were intelligent beings capable of attempts at understanding it.<<

Yes, that is empiricism. If Helen Keller fell in a forest, would she have made a sound?

>>2. Science is just the positing and testing of theories; which are just simplified models of what the universe is actually doing. These theories are ultimately formulated as mathematical functions.<<

Whereas mathematics is indeed the only “pure” science, Scientific Theories are broad principles that explain measured and observed phenomena. There is no onus for all to be explained via the grammar of math.

>>3. All of math is based ultimately on set theory.<<

Sorry. This is where your logic ladder loses a step. Set theory is a branch of mathematics but all of mathematics is not based on set theory.

>>4. All of set theory is based on logic.<<

Set theory is certainly not based on logic. For example, if a set has no cardinality, it has use in set math but little in terms of logic. 3-VL continues to be a controversial subject since it defies logic.

>>5. Logic is in the realm of philosophy, and not of science.<<

Again you ladder has no rungs. Logic is in the realm of math (p, not p and I leave it to you to postulate the akteratives).

>>Without philosophy there is no science.<<

No, science exists within a philosophical milieu but a very real framework. Philosophy makes it interesting but has no applicability in the Scientific Process.

>>Sorry to burst your simple-minded quasi-empirical balloon.<<

It saddens me deeper to burst your quasi-logic balloon.

Never argue set theory to a DBA versed in the Relational Model. You won’t win, as you did not with this post.

But thanks for playing — we have some wonderful parting gifts starting with E.F. Codd’s 1968 paper and following with Chris Date’s explanation of why 3VL is invalid both mathematically and practically.

>>If you were a true empiricist, then you would know that there is little that you can certainly know, and among the things that are least certain are those things that you see with your own eyes. <<

I don’t trust my eyes, but I do trust standard practice.

[freedumb2003]

>>You hit that one right over the Green Monster, and right out of the ballpark.... HOME RUN!!! Kudos!!!<<

Sorry, dearheart, this was a dribbler that didn’t even reach 1st base. The pitcher picked it up and tossed it to the first baseman for an easy out.

The fallacy was there for anyone to see. Especially those versed in math and logic.

[Ken H]

So, if you're atheist or evolutionist, you'll cherrypick the early Nazi propaganda to support your contentions.

My contentions are: 1) Hitler manipulated whatever was convenient to further his own ends, and 2) it is sophistry to blame either the Theory of Evolution or Christianity for Nazi crimes.

[betty boop]

The fallacy was there for anyone to see. Especially those versed in math and logic.

Well I didn't see any fallacy. If there be such, would you care to point it out to me?

[freedumb2003]

>>Well I didn’t see any fallacy. If there be such, would you care to point it out to me?<<

The attempted construction starting with Math being set-based, thus logic, thus philosophical. It is a glaring error in both logic and fact. Specious at best.

As I said in my reply, it is a bad idea to argue set theory with someone who deals with it as my profession.

My reply is pretty clear, dear. :)