Darwinian Dissonance?

Internet Infidels ^ | Timeless | Paul A. Dernavich

[Heartlander]

I understand perfectly. Someone must hit the 'abuse button' - and you know who did...

If you can tolerate the post than – let it be known and I will re-post.
It’s really that simple. Unless you have a problem…

[VadeRetro]

I understand perfectly.

Good. So you got it that the management didn't like your post and didn't want it on this site, that anybody can see it and hit the button, etc.

Someone must hit the 'abuse button' - and you know who did...

Don't know about "must," but what happened once with that post could easily happen again. My own preference in all but a few cases is too leave self-discrediting posts up where they can do their job. Nevertheless, different people have different opinions and the management has the final call.

If you can tolerate the post than – let it be known and I will re-post.

I thought you said you understood.

It’s really that simple.

You don't seem to understand. Well, I tried.

Unless you have a problem…

I don't care that much.

[Heartlander]

Look, is it OK with VadeRetro if I post #394 again?

(I would think that those who might have found my post offensive would take this into consideration – unless they are trying to remove me from this forum)

[VadeRetro]

I would have left it up in the first place. It speaks volumes of you.

[Heartlander]

Posted with permission of VadeRetro
(The person I am posting to…)

If everything is anything, then nothing is anything.
-VadeRetro

I only wish you had stopped here to actually realize what you were stating (philosophically)

Darwin never mentioned microwave popcorn. What he did say was made clear. If Gould and Eldredge had to reinvent some of it later, ‘Origin’ is a long work and very out of date. Probably not Gould or anyone he was arguing with had read it recently.
-VadeRetro

Well I think it’s great that you consider yourself more knowledgeable about Darwin than Gould and Eldredge, but then, you are the Darwinian fundamentalist. You accept the later day prophets as long as it fits (in your mind) within the natural constraints that Darwin constructed 120 odd years ago. (Vade’s Demon)

Although you are a YEC (Yes Evolution Created) you still acknowledge that the Punk-eek creationists are correct. I am glad to see this gradualist column that others adhere to is not as important to you… There is hope for you – and remember…
Science is self-forgiving! Your worth is measured by the lack of worth you attempt to prove created you!
May naturalism (multiverse, nihilism, scientism, rheumatism, relativism) bless you!

Furthermore, may you realize the world you created for yourself:

"Twist and Shout" - dumb as a stump - God should not be telling people to lie - a place with a marked absence of oogedy-boogedy-abracadabra-shazam, If your God is a real God and the creator of the universe He should, if he needs you for anything, be telling you to straighten up and try being honest about what you understand and what you remember. Not to mention you're still lying about Gould. We've really been there and done this and you haven't had the goods yet…. back-again-dumb-as-a-stump tricks…
-VadeRetro – Is the “Origin of this Feces”

I have stepped in the Vaderetro and now wish to scrape it off my shoe.

[VadeRetro]

Again, answered here.

[js1138]

I didn't see the post until after it was deleted. It was not something you would want your mother or your children to see.

[CobaltBlue]

My mother and kids could handle it just fine. Not the apotheosis of the art of invective, but not that big of a deal, IMHO.

My mother is a connoisseur of truly fine invective, and would not be impressed.

My older son has taken to "debating" on the Sluggy Freelance board. (Whatever that is. The apples don't fall far enough away from the tree, it seems.) He's trying to master the art of skewering someone with a well turned phrase. He would not be impressed, either.

3 on a scale of 1-10.

[jennyp]

will yield to you on that one. Descartes was not a chemist and neither am I, so to say that the combination of hydrogen and oxygen produces a result that can be said to be out of proportion to the seeming properties of each is perhaps a valid objection.

Thanks. (But remember, water is just an example of a general concept. I like Dr. Stochastic's example of NAND gates - one of the most simple logic gates, not doing much on their own, but when combined in the right ways can add numbers, subtract, form memories - in fact all computers can be thought of as being built from nothing but NAND gates. But then I'm a computer geek. I must come up with some examples that a non-techie type can relate to! :-)

However, consciousness (and even more so, truth and falsity) is a whole different subject. Science cannot account for it - only the appearance or illusion of it, and the effects of it.

I understand that consciousness is hardly a solved problem scientifically, but "truth and falsity" aren't amenable to science either??? Well, that's something of a quibble. The important point is, I don't see where you've shown that consciousness is in principle impossible to understand.

Science consists of making observations and building theories to explain them, and then making other observations that can decide between one theory & the other. No theory is really backed up by totally comprehensive & precise observations & measurements, strictly speaking. You're really saying that it's - in principle - impossible for scientists to gather enough data & measure phenomena just well enough to be able to ever confidently distinguish, to any degree, between one theory of consciousness and another?

Let me ask you this. I want to go further but I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. Which of the following statements would you say expresses your belief, or is closest to it? A. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not true B. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not chiefly a concern of science

B. (Incidentally, most creationists, like Philip Johnson, seem to believe all us methodological naturalists believe in A, but that's not true.) Anyway, it's B. Why do you ask? (she said innocently...)

[js1138]

Well both post 394 and 425 look and smell like Heartlander.

[PDerna]

"(she said innocently...)"

Innocent it shall remain. I am not setting a trap!

I do ask, however, because it seems like (and again... not trying to put words in anyone's mouth) most believe in B, until there is an assumption which challenges naturalism, and then it switches to A.

I have to go - I will expand later, unless you want to preemptively correct me...

[longshadow]

"Festival of Self-Immolation" placemarker

[Junior]

"Ask not for whom the troll bails" placemarker.

[RightWingNilla]

Dying embers placemarker

[PDerna]

If I may be so bold as to rise, Phoenix-like, out of these ashes....

JennyP:

Let’s repeat these statements again:
A. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not true
B. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not a concern of science

I would expect someone who held the view “B” to be somewhat agnostic on something like the origin of the universe, and I suppose most are. As something outside of our observable space and time and not subject to the scientific method, our explanations of it are all attempts at educated speculation. In light of this, any theory which satisfies some logical considerations (the cosmological argument, etc.) should be considered at least possible, and the theory of a Creator certainly does that. So if one believes in “B,” I would expect one to say that, if the origin of the cosmos was not a chief concern of science, then perhaps there are other ways in which we can obtain knowledge in this area - especially considering the fact that science already affirms certain truths, such as the “sensory evidence” principle, which are not verifiable by science. Isn’t it entirely possible that the existence of a Creator could be shown to be as valid a theory as naturalism, despite the fact that it does not chiefly reside in the domain of science?

I am not going to attempt to answer that question for you, but only to say that this seems to be the point at which many well-intentioned naturalists revert from statement “B” to A.”

[jennyp]

Hey, I was just about to ping you to this interesting (long) article by Oliver Sacks, that explores the evolution of neuroscientists' theories about perception & consciousness. Not that it'll answer any objections to the idea of a natural basis for consciousness, but it helps illustrate the playing field a bit.

[jennyp]

I would expect someone who held the view “B” to be somewhat agnostic on something like the origin of the universe, and I suppose most are. As something outside of our observable space and time and not subject to the scientific method,

I am indeed "somewhat" agnostic on the origin of the universe. None of the standard explanations, whether from science or from religion, really make much intuitive sense to me. However, I disagree that the question is necessarily "not subject to the scientific method". Just off the top of my head I can see where future discoveries should be able to help distinguish between the several theories that have the universe coming from a prior universe in some sense, and the ones that have the universe popping spontaneously "out of nowhere".

our explanations of it are all attempts at educated speculation. In light of this, any theory which satisfies some logical considerations (the cosmological argument, etc.) should be considered at least possible, and the theory of a Creator certainly does that. So if one believes in “B,” I would expect one to say that, if the origin of the cosmos was not a chief concern of science, then perhaps there are other ways in which we can obtain knowledge in this area - especially considering the fact that science already affirms certain truths, such as the “sensory evidence” principle, which are not verifiable by science.

But as I argued earlier, just because the idea of a Creator isn't scientifically verifiable doesn't mean it's an axiom like the axioms of science are. It has to actually be necessary for rational thought or discourse to begin in order for it to be an axiom. You've never shown that it's logically necessary to assume a person of some kind behind the origin of the universe in order to begin to rationally think or talk about it. You do have to assume the fundamental reliability of sense evidence, as well as the principle of non-contradiction, to begin to think or talk about science.

Isn’t it entirely possible that the existence of a Creator could be shown to be as valid a theory as naturalism, despite the fact that it does not chiefly reside in the domain of science?

Because of the above, I say you can't call it a "valid" theory until you can show that assuming a creator-person is behind it all is necessary to begin to think about the creation of the universe.

As for B vs. A, I (and I assume most scientifically-minded types) believe the answer is B, but we note that throughout history, as more & more aspects of the world became known more & more intimately, the result has always been A: The theories that were not scientifically verifiable have always turned out to be not true. Strictly speaking A isn't correct, but it has always been the way to bet.

[PDerna]

"I am indeed "somewhat" agnostic on the origin of the universe. None of the standard explanations, whether from science or from religion, really make much intuitive sense to me. However, I disagree that the question is necessarily "not subject to the scientific method". Just off the top of my head I can see where future discoveries should be able to help distinguish between the several theories that have the universe coming from a prior universe in some sense, and the ones that have the universe popping spontaneously "out of nowhere"."

Not to be a broken record about the Jaki quote in #290, but is this not ninety-nine per cent philosophy attempting to acheive a result which will then be labeled as science?

About the A and B statements, I think your answer reflects what i was trying to get at, which is that if the answer lies between A and B, then what criteria are we using?

The “proofs” for the existence of a Creator are many, but they are largely philosophical, and I would say no less compelling for being so. For instance, the idea of fairness or justice or civil rights is purely illusory if it is not imposed on us by someone outside of humanity. It is not without merit, obviously, but if the concept of justice originates with humans then, by definition, it has no authority or objectivity. The concept was either put there for a reason, or it evolved without a reason. If we are to agree that justice is a correct instinct of ours, then some kind of "creator-person" becomes axiomatic, because it is necessary.

But what really is “necessary”? We say that that sensory evidence is necessary, but for what? Strictly speaking, axioms are not necessary. One could lead what would probably be a short and bewildered life in denying them. They are only necessary if you want to do anything or go anywhere - to, as you say, begin to think or talk about science. Pursuing knowledge and having fairness and ethics in the pursuit are some things that I think we both agree are absurd to ignore. Again, forgive me (and correct me) if this is not you – but here is where the naturalist accepts only the axioms which are necessary for naturalism, and then assumes that naturalism will explain the rest. This is a philosophic, or a personal decision. This decision is made not on science but on preference. To say that you are a naturalist because you don’t see any evidence of a creator does not state things in the correct order – it is really that you don’t see any evidence of a creator because you are a naturalist.