Replies

Thus there was also a beginning of physical causation, an uncaused cause. The only possible uncaused cause is God.

Without a doubt, Alamo-Girl!

What really drives me nutz about E. O. Wilson's statement is that he is saying evolution uses "illusions" to accomplish "ends" or "purposes" (reproductive success) while at the same time many if not most Neodarwinists strongly deny that nature has any purposes at all. What a jumbled mess!

Thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement Alamo-Girl! You can probably tell I've been doing a little thinking about "the observer problem" lately....

Oh, I absolutely agree with you about the bizarre claims of Wilson - and that it belies the happenstance explanation usually offered by those who see "matter in all its motions" as "all that there is". I just can't resist commenting on geometry. LOL!

And I'm tickled pink you are deep into the observer problem! Fascinating subject, I've been meditating about it also.

Betty!

It is great to hear from you!

What really drives me nutz about E. O. Wilson's statement is that he is saying evolution uses "illusions" to accomplish "ends" or "purposes" (reproductive success) while at the same time many if not most Neodarwinists strongly deny that nature has any purposes at all. What a jumbled mess!

Agreed. To stand back and watch the ‘experts’ debate the philosophical ramifications of their belief is - well, I wish I could say humorous. The statement you are commenting on was actually from both Ruse and Wilson. Ruse recently got into a little squabble with Dennett over his latest book Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon and had this to say:

I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect – in fact, I am more hard-line than you are, because I don’t buy into this meme bullsh** but put everything – especially including ethics – in the language of genes. I stick to this and my next book – which incidentally starts by quoting you approvingly on the world importance of selection – goes after the lot – Marxists, constructivists, feminists, creationists, philosophers, you name it.

Now although I don’t agree with Ruse, I always respect someone who is honest with their belief. That being said, philosophical naturalism via evolution (the now ‘accepted’ creation process for our existence) has started to delve into the dark aspects that many ignore for the sake of convenience. Within nature; design, ethics, religion, beauty, intelligence, etc. are all illusions beguiled upon us without purpose. Unless we serve the same purpose as any old reaction such as fire - consume oxygen and spread randomly in accordance with random natural events. And why not, scientists say we are children of the stars and to the stars we shall will return.

But if this is so, why do philosophical naturalists dismiss astrology (The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs). If no intelligent design exists than astrology is part of the philosophical naturalists beliefs. Hey, the stars lined up just right and here we all sit discussing issues on the internet - but hey, had they lined up different there would be no internet or issues to discuss and it would not make any difference in the whole scheme of events.

What about alchemy (A seemingly magical power or process of transmuting )? Why should philosophical naturalists dismiss this as they research OOL? Life from non-life, intelligence from stupidity (lack of intelligence), design from the illusions of design…

The one thing we’ve learned from history is that it repeats itself. We are currently looking at the new improved enlightenment movement (or ‘brights’ ) back now with even bigger dogma and more massive control - and even more baggage than before.