Posted on 11/06/2003 7:34:45 PM PST by Heartlander
Let's go to the videotape...
Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be. Let me give you examples.
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent Design theory ( "Design Yes, Intelligent No" ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume, are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word "design" is incorrect. And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to describe something that can't possibly exist.
Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers" with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random "improvements." In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly creation." [2] That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable to whom, and on what basis? Another term which receives heavy usage is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard. But in order for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or standard to fulfill. If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success? What if chickens were supposed to fly? What if beavers were supposed to build A-frames? Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful if it exists. Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble.
Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to positive feedback.[3] Maybe evolution is a focus group!? Whether it is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given their presuppositions. One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it!
It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term "cybersex." If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true to its object. Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word which it is only supposed to modify. Contrarily, one could have a blue book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book. One could make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a selection. But natural? A selection is a choice, and only a conscious being that can process information can really make a choice, or even input information into a system which will later result in a choice. However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of existence, that is an occurrence. We are comfortable with "natural selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron.
I know what this proves. It proves absolutely nothing. This is innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque theories about the inadequacy of language. One could say that a critique based on language is aimed at the most inconsequential part of any argument, like saying that Kierkegaard would have been more compelling if he had typed in New Times Roman. However, a more careful consideration will reveal that exactly the opposite is true, at least in this case. The words used by modern-day Darwinists are not a sidelight, they are symptomatic of a fissure in the structure of their thought. I believe that when someone wrongly calls the evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing. It is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word that will work. It is because there is something brilliant, something awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct is to want to know who gets credit for it. The impulse is innate and proper. It is the decision to give credit to an abstract and unauthored "process" which is out of sync.
Let me make the point in a more obvious way. Here are two written accounts:
A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.
B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
If asked where these two fictitious excerpts came from, most would say that A was from a textbook or scientific journal, and probably describes events observed under a microscope or in a laboratory. B would be a typical example of newspaper journalism. Most people would say that, of course, they are not talking about the same thing. But could they be? Well, to the materialist, the answer is certainly negative. To those who don't take their Darwinism decaffeinated, who embrace it as a philosophy which excludes any non-natural explanations for life's origins, the answer is absolutely. B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same. Any outrage or emotion felt upon reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response, but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had happened. In this view, A is probably the most responsible account. Nature, with its fittest members leading the way, marches on. I think I would be correct in stating that many would disagree with, or be offended by, that analysis. What I am not really sure of, and would like explained to me, is why? What is in view is not so much of a Missing Link, as much as a Missing Leap: the leap from the physical to the metaphysical. Taken as a starting point, I have no problem with quantitative assessments. They establish a baseline of knowledge for us.
But what about life? Life is an elusive concept that cannot be quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent book. [4] Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life, one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers life. Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are supplemented with the vision of the mind. No biologist contemptuous of metaphysics can claim, if he is consistent, that he has observed life, let alone its evolution. We then start to have an aesthetic appreciation for the beauty and ingenuity of these life forms, and it is not long before we get around to talking about abstract concepts such as rights, justice, and equality, and assigning some species - namely, us - some kind of moral responsibilities for them, none of which can be measured according to scientific methods.
I think it is safely assumed by all parties that, although we have some physical and behavioral characteristics in common, humans are significantly more intelligent and sophisticated than our mammal friends, and possessed of a vastly different consciousness. For whatever reason, we are unique enough to make us "special." The problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less why, this consciousness emerged. And a bigger problem is the strangeness of our consciousness: abstract self-doubt, philosophical curiosity, existential despair. How does an intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for battle? Why do we consider compassion for the sick to be a good thing when it can only give us a disadvantage in our vicious eat-or-be-eaten world? Why would these traits emerge so late in the game, when one would think evolution would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines? We cannot acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution, any more than a sine wave can develop separation anxiety. And yet many who swear by the powers of Darwin and empiricism also cling, hypocritically, to a quite unproven assumption that the human race is somehow set apart, created for a glorious destiny. Just as determinists argue undeterministically, scientists believe unscientifically. The most serious offenders in this category have to be the various minds behind the Humanist Manifesto, who roundly reject the metaphysical even as they affirm it, by assumption, in their grand prescriptions for humanity. This is called talking out of two sides of the mouth. Now, biologically speaking, developing this trait would be a great way for an organism to gain a tactical advantage in the struggle for survival. Unfortunately, it also opens the creature up for easy attack in life's intellectual jungles. These contradictory assumptions met each other vividly in the theater of mainstream culture last year, during the pop radio reign of "Bad Touch," the Bloodhound Gang song. You know the song: it was the one with the refrain of "You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals / So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." It was pure Darwinism for the dance floor and became an instant dorm room classic, despite (or most likely, because of) the fact that it was too explicit for the kitsch it aspired to. The party music stopped, however, upon arrival of Thornhill and Palmer's The Natural History of Rape, the book that investigated whether rape was a genetically determined trait that enabled humans to climb the evolutionary ladder. The book's research was as swiftly refuted as The Bell Curve's. However, the white-hot center of controversy surrounding this book was not the research, but the inferences that might have been made from it: the fear that rape could be rationalized, or even accepted, on a biological basis. The science may have been bad, but the logic is faultless. Why can't a chameleon's color change, a bat's sonar, and a man's sexual coercion all be examples of successful evolutionary "design"? Given the absence of any empirical alternative to social Darwinism, the nonconsensual Discovery Channel bump-and-grind is a pretty educated approach to sexual ethics. I repeat: one cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it.
That, then, is why the language is confused: because the ideas are confused, because the mind is confused. To the extent that our Darwinians and humanists seek answers to humanity's dilemmas using the natural sciences, they are absolutely on the right track. To the extent that they reject the idea of a divine or supernatural creator using the natural sciences, they are not only overstepping the boundaries of their field, but they are plainly contradicted by their language, their goals, and their lives. G.K. Chesterton, writing a century ago, astutely observed this dichotomy in the modern mind when he said that "the man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts." [5] It is precisely this incongruity which remains unaccounted for today. This incongruity was raised to heights both humorous and sublime by noted Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, writing an essay for the Atlantic Monthly called "The Biological Basis of Morality." In it, Wilson outlines the argument for his suspicion that morals, ethics, and belief in the supernatural can all be written off to purely materially-originating, evolutionary-guided brain circuitry, and that's that. In the light of this, he suggests in his conclusion that evolutionary history be "retold as poetry, " because it is more intrinsically grand than any religious epic.[6] But if moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in motion, where does that leave appreciation for poetry? And seeing that poetry has a definite beginning and an end, as well as an author and a purpose, isn't the evolutionary epic the very last thing that could be told as poetry? Besides, who could possibly come up with a rhyme for lepidoptera? If life is a drama, then it needs a Bard; and we need to learn to acknowledge our cosmic Bard, just like Alonso in the final act of The Tempest:
This is as strange a maze as e'er men trod,
And there is in this business more than nature
Was ever conduct of. Some oracle
Must rectify our knowledge.
1. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes," Time Magazine 154 no. 8, August 13, 1999.
2. Theodore Schick, Jr., "When Humanists Meet E.T.," Free Inquiry 20 no.3, Summer 2000, pp. 36-7.
3. Robert Wright, "The Accidental Creationist," The New Yorker, Dec. 30,
1999, pp. 56-65.
4. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science, (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2000, p. 97).
5. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (NY: Image Books, 1990, pp 41-2).
6. E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," The Atlantic Monthly 281 no. 4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.
Why don’t I just tell you what I am… A 'little' frustrated. LOL!
We have been through this before. (maybe you can thank me for reminding you again…)
You are stating:
The universe is mindless. Our conscious emerged from this mindless universe. Therefore consciousness is a subset of mindlessness.
Now beyond the fact that every statement is a major assumption, is this a fallacy of composition? If it is not, then please inform science because ‘human consciousness’ has been a riddle for quite some time. Your examples with oxygen, hydrogen, and water prove what?… Consciousness comes from mindlessness?
Again, let me get this straight:
Two elements can form a more complex element due to mindless happenstance therefore our consciousness is the result of mindless happenstance.
Is this a fallacy of composition? Again, if not, please inform science. And again, I believe you are comparing elements and oranges.
Is this truly what science is telling us now? When did it become a fact that we are the result of a mindless universe? I thought science was agnostic and not atheistic…
Now I state that "Consciousness is not subsumed by mindlessness."
Subsume:Is this a fallacy of composition?
: to include or place within something larger or more comprehensive : encompass as a subordinate or component element (red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term "color")
Furthermore, is this fallacy of composition allowed to be applied to the tree of life or genetic relationships within evolution? Obviously you would say “no” because this bone structure is similar to this so it must come from this (as more data comes in adopt it accordingly) … and since you have determined ‘this truth’, genetic relationships will always fit somehow.
Fallacy of composition? Of course you don’t ‘believe’ so because you have already stated (as an atheist) that all came from mindlessness. I really do not want to argue this ‘tree of life thing’ or ‘genetic relationship thing’ on this thread. (Again, out of frustration)
But if you insist on following me around and crying foul via ‘fallacy of composition’ each time I post:
Consciousness is not subsumed by mindlessness.Why don’t you just prove it and declare to science, “Problem solved!”
So why are you really here? You're obviously not here to say anything worthwhile, and you're equally obviously not all that happy about it. Is this penance for something or what?
Whatever. If this helps you work through whatever it is, and gets your bona-fides straight with the mothership crew to boot, so be it. Tell 'em I said hi.
Ah, so I see we have been thru this before! Why doesn't that surprise me?
You are stating:The universe is mindless. Our conscious emerged from this mindless universe. Therefore consciousness is a subset of mindlessness.
Yes, yes, and no. I'm not saying consciousness is a subset of mindlessness!
Now I state that "Consciousness is not subsumed by mindlessness."
Subsume:
: to include or place within something larger or more comprehensive : encompass as a subordinate or component element (red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term "color")
IOW, A is "subsumed under" B if A is a member of set B.
But you can't say that conscious entities are subsumed under the set of unconscious entities. Just like you can't say that the set "all the H2O molecules" are subsumed under the set "all the O and H atoms." They're mutually exclusive sets! (They're orthogonal. They refer to two different classes of things entirely.)
Similarly, consciousness and mindlessness are mutually exclusive sets.
Now, I am a conscious being. I am composed of mindless parts, which interact in such a way that the total item (me) is conscious. But you cannot say that a complex object is "subsumed" by its/her component parts. Like the water vs. the free hydrogen & oxygen example. It makes no sense at all to think of water as being "subsumed" by the set of all oxygen & hydrogen atoms. It's composed of members of that set, yes. But it makes no sense to say that water itself is a member of that set: Water is not an atom. How can a molecule be a member of a set of free atoms?
See? Water is a higher-order entity than mere atoms. A molecule of water is made up of precisely three atoms. Its weight is equal to that of three atoms taken separately. And there's no extra, magical entity added to the atoms to produce this higher-order organization called a "molecule of water". There's no mystical or Ideal "wetness" quality that's injected into it to make it wetter than the tree atoms taken alone are. But because of the relationship of the atoms to each other, this higher-order entity behaves radically differently than the three atoms taken alone.
You seem to think this can't be possible without some supernatural person removing the Ideal Forms called "flammability" and "explosiveness" from the individual atoms injecting some kind of Ideal Form called "wetness" into the resulting molecule. That is what you're saying when you assert that conscious beings cannot arise naturally out of mindless parts.
Thank you for your answer, Though let me get this straight it's OK/Acceptable to murder, rape, steal if your God tells you it's OK but only if your God is the Christian/Jewish God?
So someone like Atilla the Hun was evil because he justified his rape and pilliage because his God(Aries)gave him his blessing to conquer the Western Roman Empire when he found his sword but for Moses who does the same is good because it was his/your God who gave him the blessing to conquer the "Strangers" in Isreal. Call me ignorant but I just don't see the difference.
I agree but it seems others do not… social Darwinism, etc…it's what the article is about.
Social Darwinism isn't science, It maybe social science but that's not a real science, it's not physical science. Actually it wasn't like after Darwin came all of a sudden people said let's build a economic system on the theory of evolution, If Darwin and the Theory of Evolution never exsisted social Darwinism would have still gone on just under a different name.
Let’s see, you believe everything is a subset of a mindless universe with the exception of our consciousness which is now a ‘higher-order entity’. You give examples of mindless chemical processes to prove how consciousness can emerge from mindlessness because water is no longer an atom but is now mindless molecules.
You are saying; galaxies are a subset of a mindless universe, stars, planets, rocks, and ‘water’ – but not the ‘higher-order entity’ that is human consciousness.
Thanks for the clear reply. :-)
Justice vs. murder, there is a difference isn’t there? A locked up inmate is put to death… atom bombs were dropped on Japan… we are at war on foreign soil against people who believe their cause to be ‘just’…
I’m not going to dance around this or sugarcoat this; I don’t think justice is relative. Again, I support God’s judgment and I believe He is the basis for morality (and this includes justice). The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanites, I see as justice and not murder. As to the rape claim, God did/does not sanction rape. He condemns rape. As awful as this might sound to you, ‘all’ the Midianites were to be killed. Moses allowed the girls who had not “known man by lying with him” to live due to ‘his’ compassion. But if you knew the Canaanite culture, since these girls had not yet ‘known a man’ they would have been extremely young. Beyond this, Jewish law forbids rape.
The Canaanites were guilty of terrible crimes for 400 years. Among these crimes/sins were extremely immoral sexual behavior and child sacrifice. There must be a difference between justice and murder. Men are currently punished for their sins/crimes by societies now.
So this really boils down to, ‘what is justice and where does it come from?’
God? Religion? Social darwinism? Science? Relative society? Self?…
But the real miracle is the fact that I did not quote the President in this post ; )
Good, I think you do understand, somewhat.
Being conscious is an activity. Consciousness is an ability of certain beings. It's a quality of those beings. In the same way that wetness & the ability to put out a fire is a quality of water. So, where did this "wetness" quality come from? Do oxygen & hydrogen atoms have a certain amount of "wetness" inside them waiting to be released when they're joined up to make water? How are dry, flammable parts able to produce a wet, flame retardant product in result?
Does the Theory of Evolution claim that humans descended from less intelligent mammals? If this is a foundational truth does it change views on all other areas of science, philosophy, family, laws, animal rights, situational ethics, racial judgments (Which race is genetically superior), cloning, mining clones for body parts....
Common sense seems to be "tossed out the window" by your need to adhere to a rigid set of definitions. All watershed issues pivot on the whether we are evolved animals, or if we were specially created and imbued with intelligent souls by an entity that gives us authority over nature.
Take a moment to think it through and you will see your error.
How about this analogy: We're all composed of atoms. Therefore you and I are "subsumed", in your application of the word, under the set of all objects that are smaller than 1 micron. And yet, you and I are both bigger than 1 micron. How can that be? We're bigger than 1 micron and yet we're subsumed under the set of all objects that are smaller than 1 micron?
They did.
If this is a foundational truth does it change views on all other areas of science, philosophy, family, laws, animal rights, situational ethics, racial judgments (Which race is genetically superior), cloning, mining clones for body parts....
Why should it change those things? The theory of evolution does not, for example, deny the existence of morality, or of God, or of morality derived from God.
Beyond these bold assertions, you have offered no proof other than 'we are conscious and atoms make molecules'. (Are you trying to prove a positive?) Again, you are mixing elements and oranges. Though maybe you should offer your proof to those researching AI and maybe they will stop and just become really patient.
Human consciousness contains intrinsic attributes of; reason, purpose, value, intellect, and morality from a universe intrisically void of these attributes. According to your 'belief' consciousness was formed from this mindlessness and in turn created reason, purpose, value, intellect, and morality. These items exist only in our conscious, nowhere else in the universe, and are only ‘real’ to us to do with as we see fit. So the question is, are they really 'real'?
Again, from the article:
A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.What is the difference? Is this mixing elements and oranges? 'Orange-ness' is something only our consciousness sees as an intrinsic attribute of oranges.B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
Since you have already accused me of Zen-like postings ; )
If a universe forms and no one is around to see it, does it really exist?
Is it consciousness that creates the universe or the universe that creates the advent of consciousness so both might exist.
Look, let's just be honest here (or we could let this go on mindlessly). I am a Christian and obviously I do not believe consciousness arose from mindlessness. You are an atheist and obviously you do believe consciousness arose from mindlessness. I do not believe that it is possible for me to change your mind...
Just my two microns... FWIW…
It would probably have been called "Spencerism" by the Conservatives and "Capitalism" by the Liberals.
It removes the conviction that one can espouse the rightness of absolute truth. Enter relativism and the end to unalienable rights. Witness Europe and the U.N.'s relativistic humanism. A plurality of people who have every conceivable justification to claim they know what is best, because evolution has been scientifically proven in their minds. Interpretation issues regarding the Holy Book's of the world, give open season to claiming no one can enforce their view of right and wrong in a sovereign way.
They believe the Judeo-Christian principles under girding American culture can be assailed on the point that science trumps the truth of our Bible. Determinism leads to stoic fatalism, removing the passion for truth and justice to prevail. Witness our Judicial System.
Eliminate our God of Judeo-Christian origins and immorality is rationalized on the basis of the IDOL called science. Science should be fun and helpful, but shouldn't politically be used to relativise the need for prayer in the lives of our children in the public square.
All things pivot on the justification Evolution theory places in the minds of it's adherents.
I disagree. But in a way, it really doesn't matter. The truth is not contingent on how we feel about it, and even if you're absolutely right - which you aren't ;) - the truth is also not contingent on the consequences. Essentially, the left will claim that scientific truth and the concept of universal moral precepts are incompatible and irreconcilable, and thus we must dispense with one or the other. You would seem to agree with them, although you would disagree about which one to toss out. But that's a losing proposition - for as much as we argue and debate and discuss evolution here on FR, the reality is, that debate is over, long over, in the scientific community, which is the only place that discussions of scientific truth really matter. The theory of evolution is a true and accurate, if not complete, explanation of the rise and diversity of life on earth. This is indisputably true. I realize you dispute it, but it really doesn't matter - in the forums where it does matter, the debate is over and the evolution-deniers have been shown to be wrong. And so you're forced into the untenable position of claiming that your belief in some abstract construct or another must trump verified scientific truth - you would force them to choose between morality and the truth, because they can't have both, according to you and the left. And I have a sneaky suspicion a great many of them will not embrace the falsehood of denying evolution as you wish them to.
But it's really a false dichotomy, in the end. There is no need to choose between the two, no matter how much the anti-authoritarian left wishes it to be so. Evolution and morality are entirely reconcilable, as witnessed by the vast number of people in this country, and on this forum, who believe that evolution can be a mechanism used by God in the process of His creation, and that accepting the truth of the theory of evolution does not mean that you must abandon all notions of morality. They understand that truth can always be reconciled with truth, and that denying one truth in the name of another serves no one but those who have something to gain by that denial. And they understand that people who have something to gain by denying the truth are people who are to be regarded with suspicion and distrust. Don't join those ranks in their minds, if you can help it, is my suggestion.
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.