Posted on 12/16/2013 3:23:41 PM PST by Politically Correct
Taking the publication of Stephen Meyer's bestseller Darwin's Doubt as his news hook, our colleague the University of Texas, El Paso, mathematician Granville Sewell smartly answers a good question: What do you have believe if you're NOT a proponent of intelligent design? Writes Dr. Sewell in an El Paso Times op-ed:
So what do ID proponents believe?
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to state clearly what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design. Peter Urone, in his 2001 physics text "College Physics" writes, "One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena."
The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design, that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics.
Thus you must believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes.
Contrary to popular belief, to be an ID proponent you do not have to believe that all species were created simultaneously a few thousand years ago, or that humans are unrelated to earlier primates, or that natural selection cannot cause bacteria to develop a resistance to antibiotics.
If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God. But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the whole process: congratulations, you are one of us after all!
The great point Granville makes is that far from ID proponents being the ones who should be on the defensive, it's really design deniers who are saddled with a heavy load of presumptive error. The real burden of proof lies on them. Poor guys!
On a side note.
In my observations of this debate and how the culture and media have dealt with a the growing uncertainty of the Neo-Darwinian narrative, I am seeing more and more acceptance of a super-natural explanation.
The scientific community is venturing into Meta-Physics and invoking and number of Multi-Verse theories.
This, in my opinion, has opened the doors for the POP-Science shows like “Ancient Aliens”.
If you watch that show, they rarely address the question of evolution and infer that “knowledge” came suddenly.
The show is surprisingly popular.
I see it as an “out” for a culture that has been conditioned to reject religion and creation in particular.
There are natural processes, backed up by physics/math, whereby very simple systems can tend to produce astounding complexity. Entropy may win out in the end, but given suitable random circumstances, organized structures (some self-perpetuating) can arise and be resilient for quite some time and extent.
Starting point must-read (or at least skim) books are _Chaos_ (James Gleick), _A_New_Kind_Of_Science_ (Stephen Wolfram), _On_Numbers_And_Games_ part 0 (John Horton Conway). These cover the math involved, showing intricate complexity arising from simplicity.
Next is study of physics, considering everything arises from four basic (and simple!) forces, and extends thru relativity and quantum mechanics - also simple topics at their core (they’re “hard” because they’re not intuitive from our limited experience).
Chemistry is just applied physics. Biology is specialized chemistry. How raw chemicals sprout into self-reproducing DNA sequences remains unclear, but given the above subjects it’s mostly a matter of working thru probabilities, not outright impossibilities.
Reviewing computer science may help too, discovering that the mind-blowing complexity which is delivering these words to you is, at core, nothing more than “NAND gates” (”true and true give false, otherwise give true”) adhering to “Turing machine” (another simple topic) principles. The pieces are simple; assembled unto orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude. Roboticists have found that surprisingly life-like behaviors can easily arise from rather simple mechanical constructs.
If you can take all this and wrap your head around scaling the simplest constructs thru cosmological probabilities, you may very well nod your head agreeing “yeah, most of it makes some kind of sense.” I’m not going to reject the notion of God’s hand in all of it, but I do find an awful lot of ID adherents spouting gross ignorance instead of insights where needed and plain. These aren’t matters of “belief”, they’re a matter of “if you do X, you’ll get Y, which does some pretty amazing things when considered on a planetary scale.”
[I’m very tired right now, so I apologize if rather disjointed.]
Interesting observation.
It’s good news, if they know something [God] is missing and start looking, He’ll meet them where they are.
It’s good news, if they know something [God] is missing and start looking, He’ll meet them where they are.
__________________________________________________________
My thoughts exactly.
The impossibility of an “Alien Race” seeding Earth can only be accepted if they invoke some unknown super advanced technology that is so super advanced, they only leave us with the knowledge of how to move and cut heavy stones.
It’s actually pretty funny.
You got snowflakes.
Self-perpetuating ?
Snowflakes.
Complexity of structure is wholly different than function.
And yes, entropy still rules the day.
Raw chemicals “sprout into self-reproducing DNA ?”
That’s a joke.
It’s never happened.
In my most humble and caring tone.
All I can say is that;
“YOU HAVE BEEN SOLD A BAG OF GOODS.”
You bought it because you want to believe.
You need an “out”.
It seems you, like many so-called scientist of our day extend the uncertainty of the scientific method beyond its capabilities, by definition.
Because it is what you/they need, in-order to avoid something that has been staring them in the face for years.
If you aren’t connecting morality to creationism, then your whole point has become unintelligible to me.
No, sir, I assume nothing.
If you aren’t connecting morality to creationism, then your whole point has become unintelligible to me.
_______________________________________________________
But I am connecting Objective Morality to creationism.
You can infer some “subjective morality” as the result of evolution all you want, some evolved social construct, out of necessity since that is what YOU SEE.
There is NO necessity for objective morality in your world.
Therefore, everything “moral” is subjective and is a construct of human evolution.
Under this logic, virtually everything is relative.
Objective morality, in my world is a constant.
I’ve been on, and continue on a road of discovery.
Along my journey I have simply used the process of elimination.
I found Jesus as a result.
Not because I was looking, but because there are no other alternatives.
I’ve done the math.
I’ve considered in depth the texts and the physical science.
The first thing I realized was that Darwinian evolution not only DID NOT HAPPEN, it can’t happen.
Man made global warming/Climate change is certainly a hoax.
The arguments are virtually identical.
Evolution, Darwinian evolution is the greatest hoax EVER.
Physics and chemistry cannot alone produce animal/plant life, let alone the abstraction of wondering where one came from, nor to even foolishly postulate "there is no God.".
It’s actually in philosophy that the theology would play out: if (a) evolution were true, and (b) man was proved to have evolved, then there is no special creation of man. If there is no special creation of man, then man does not bear the image of God. If man does not bear the image of God, then there is no moral imperative against murder, or rape, or respecting property. Therefore, if evolution applies to man then morality does not.
<><><><><<
Logical fail.
You’ve made a giant assumption, completely unsupported by anything you’ve written - likely because it is an article of faith for you.
I wonder if you know what that assumption is.
The logic is less than sound.
Can you tell me what asserted but entirely unproven assumption lies at the center of this logic expression you are defending?
Either way the Hand of the Creator is to be seen in the Creation.
Unfortunately, I probably will not survive the millions of years necessary to watch that laptop evolve to fruition. But you KNOW that it is bound to happen. *snark* Solid, simple logic pierces the vainest of egos once again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.