Replies

I was alerted to the fact that my article (“Darwinian Dissonance”) had sparked a discussion here, and I have to say that I’m glad I found you. I’ve followed most of the threads, and the discussion has been enjoyable to read. Although I probably should stay out of it, I will offer just a few comments:

In regard to post #21 (js1138), it was neither a joke on me or the Infidels that they decided to run my article. They were very explicit about the fact that it took a position contrary to theirs, and they ran it anyway, which is to their credit. They do, on rare occasion, run contrary viewpoints. I appreciated their willingness to do it.

You folks already dealt with this topic, but, as for post #31, I was not trying to make a point about science writing. I am in no position to critique anybody’s writing, not to mention anybody’s science. Neither of them are my strong suits. I was trying, though, to make one broad point about an idea behind certain kinds of science writing, or certain kinds of science, and some of you have already identified it: philosophy is the foundation of science, and if your philosophic assumptions are incorrect, then your science will follow suit. Science is based on a host of unprovable articles of faith; for instance, that that there is an order to reality which our minds can correctly relate to. If you believe that our universe is governed by mindless matter, then where does that put your thoughts, being a subset of the mindless matter? Aren’t your ideas of morality just random reconfigurations of atoms? And if you say they are not, on what basis can you make that determination? The truth is that this is a hole from which you cannot extricate yourself. To me, this is one of the cardinal philosophical errors of our time. One must assume that there is Intelligent and Purposeful Design in order to disprove it. Get a clue, VadeRetro (post #61)! JennyP, even if I buy your assertion that lifeless atoms can self-organize in a way that allows them to “want very much” to survive…well, so what? That doesn’t tell me the first thing about getting to a transcendent moral “ought.” All it tells me is that something exists that previously didn’t. It doesn’t tell me why it exists or why it should not yell “Fire!” in a crowded block of molecules. Even bacteria self-organizes at the top of a slice of cheese.

To General_Re, I recognize the distinction between atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, etc (post #47), but I didn’t call any out specifically. Perhaps I should have. I left it for readers themselves to see if the particular shoe fits. In my experience, atheism and evolutionary theory are two sides of the same coin, at least in the mind of the average Joe. Although evolutionary theory is, as you rightly point out, a descriptive and not prescriptive theory, “Darwinism” has been embraced as an entire worldview by those whose prior philosophic assumptions exclude any idea of a God (see Robert Wright). If you fall into this category, you will probably feel like I am waging a “holy war” against science, like Balrog666. But this is not of my doing.

One must assume that there is Intelligent and Purposeful Design in order to disprove it. Get a clue, VadeRetro (post #61)!

There's a nice refutation of the Marxist "Property is theft" slogan which points out that the concept of "theft" is meaningless without the concept of property and the rightful ownership thereof. However, I don't see the shoe on that foot here.

My somewhat abrupt comment in 61 was expanded upon in 66, but I'll attempt to be clearer yet. In the following passage of your article, you make an argument from semantics.

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.

Scientists believe (in fact fully know) that a system which is initially easily described may over time generate a vast amount of internal complexity, no longer easily described with accuracy. Of special interest: a super-duper-hot expanding quark-qluon-plasma may become a universe of clusters, galaxies, planets, comets, gas, and dust by following known rules of behavior. An initially simple proto-planet can cool in interesting ways in the right conditions.

Whether any of this counts as "design" in your dictionary is irrelevant even if somebody has used the word in a manner you disallow. It is quite possible, more likely than not, that our condition here arose in some such way, whether with or without some initial manipulation by some sentient being. You don't dismiss the possibility by lawyering on what "design" means to you.

Welcome to FR, & thanks for stopping by!

JennyP, even if I buy your assertion that lifeless atoms can self-organize in a way that allows them to “want very much” to survive…well, so what? That doesn’t tell me the first thing about getting to a transcendent moral “ought.” All it tells me is that something exists that previously didn’t. It doesn’t tell me why it exists or why it should not yell “Fire!” in a crowded block of molecules. Even bacteria self-organizes at the top of a slice of cheese.

A transcendent moral "ought", eh? You creationists are all alike: Closet monarchists! :-)

It's been a while, but looking back I think I argued reasonably well for the naturalistic basis for objective morality in 83 & 90.

Well, welcome aboard, anyway - with a few exceptions, we rarely get the author himself popping up to defend his own work ;)

In my experience, atheism and evolutionary theory are two sides of the same coin, at least in the mind of the average Joe.

Pauline Kael didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon, either. Given that the most recent Gallup polls on the subject suggest that a large swath of the general population finds the theory of evolution to be compatible with a belief in God, perhaps you simply need to get out more often. And even for those who do find atheism and evolution inseparable, they will hardly be helped by articles that effectively serve to gloss over that very issue by essentially affirming that atheism and evolution are one and the same. I don't believe that, and neither do millions more, your experience notwithstanding.

Although evolutionary theory is, as you rightly point out, a descriptive and not prescriptive theory, “Darwinism” has been embraced as an entire worldview by those whose prior philosophic assumptions exclude any idea of a God (see Robert Wright).

The same Robert Wright who wrote "Indeed, the Darwinian account of our creation...is not only compatible with a higher purpose but vaguely suggestive of one"?

Nevertheless, there are those who do as you say - Richard Dawkins is one. He would have you believe that evolution and God are incompatible, so God has to go. And here in this article I am apparently presented with the same claim - evolution and God are incompatible, but this time, evolution has to go. The assessments of Richard Dawkins and Paul Dernavich are, as nearly as I can tell, identical, differing only insofar as the proposed remedies to the dichotomy are concerned - entertaining the idea that it may be a false dichotomy is apparently not on either menu today...