Designing We Shall Go. "God is Dead": Nietsche ("Nietzsche is Dead": God)

Fred on Everything ^ | January 11, 2006 | Fred

[hosepipe]

[ No disrespect intended; but it seems to me, Coyoteman, that neo-Darwinist theory in particular is well overdue for an epistemological "house-cleaning." ]

Is that anything like an prime enema?...

[betty boop]

Oh Coyoteman, no rush needed. I'm waiting to hear from you, whenever (or if ever) you have the opportunity to get back.

If you're wondering why that might be the case, well I just happen to respect the way you think.

Thanks for asking questions and sharing your thoughts with me.

[betty boop]

Is that anything like an prime enema?...

Actually hosepipe, it may be very, very like. :^) And so one hesitates to elaborate a description.... :^)

Thanks so much for the chuckle!

[Alamo-Girl]

Well, having thought it over, I'd answer that question by saying: Probably the same way the scientific method seemingly always deals with such problems: Either hold them tacitly, as unexamined initial premises; or outright deny they exist. Then these same folks will turn around, and describe to you their formal cause: random mutation + natural selection.

Excellent, excellent, excellent analysis! Thank you so much!

[hosepipe]

[ Then these same folks will turn around, and describe to you their formal cause: random mutation + natural selection. ]

LoL.... has a ring to it dunt it..

[Alamo-Girl]

Yes indeed - an explanation by default. Thanks for your post!

[betty boop]

Humans tend to be very comfortable thinking in terms of agents with goals.

Yes indeed, Vic, because that is what human beings are -- agents with goals -- and they've always been that way. At a time when humans have been thoroughly devalued, it seems we can no longer appreciate this indisputable fact.

As to what I intend by the word random, I simply think of it as the condition of a given system in which the system's parts are not correlated. Correlation is something specifiable by a blueprint, but a blueprint is not a "natural" object. Darwinist random mutation + natural selection is not a "blueprint," because it specifies no purpose. (Formal and final causes seem to be intimately related one to the other.) Darwinist evolution theory is literally mindless. Perhaps that is its great attraction for many people today.

But I'm just a dinosaur who does not hold to this view of a mindless, purposeless universe; or that the development of its critical components (preeminently including man, an intelligent being) could possibly be the product of a purely "random walk."

For how could a universe that contains intelligent beings have less than an intelligent cause? Which is why I aver that Darwinist theory is not "wrong" necessarily, but simply incomplete. It explains much; but not everything. FWIW

Thanks so much for your reply, Vic.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for yet another excellent post!

If you are a dinosaur then so am I.

Truly, if all those who are so quick to declare a thing random or purposeless would lay aside their bias for just one instant they would realize they cannot make any such declaration about a system when they do not yet know what the system "is".

But that is what happens when science sweeps half of the Aristotlean causes off the table in the interest of "methodological naturalism". The danger, of course, is if they also believe what remains is reality.

[betty boop]

...we have been dethroned time and time again.

Wait just a minute, vic: When were we ever enthroned, such that now we are "dethroned?" What was that state of being, whose apparent loss (seemingly) you so bitterly complain about?

It appears that John Derbyshire does complain about it. I read him regularly in The National Review. He usually treats of scientific topics there. I thought his recent piece on intelligent design completely missed the point of the issues ID raises. Which have nothing to do with a "search for the designer," or a "proof of the existence of God." Either pursuit would be frivolous and unfruitful I'm sure, and certainly not a proper object for science.

Mr. Derbyshire is entitled to his own views, just as all the rest of us. But what he is not entitled to -- nor any of the rest of us -- is his own facts.

In my judgment FWIW, ID has been presented (and is being presented) to the public in terms of a completely confused and inchoate description. But then it is true that, on the Progressive Left, it has always been understood that whoever gets control of the language, gets control of the debate.

Thanks so much for writing, vic!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post! I agree with you on all of it.

[hosepipe]

[ But then it is true that, on the Progressive Left, it has always been understood that whoever gets control of the language, gets control of the debate. ]

True, evidenced by the word "progressive" being used for regressive ideas and solutions being used.. With, Diaelectic materialists, words are part of the material they "morph"..

[sausageseller]

You know what? I am a Christian, and a conservative. Most scientists are too. But I want science taught in a science class. Intelligent design isn't science. Don't teach it in a science class.

When I was taught man evolved from an ape like creature in class, I realized the religion of most scientist is not compatible with being a true Christian.

[Bingo Jerry]

Evolution DEFINITELY is not science

Credentials?

Funny that no actual scientists ever say that. Ones with real science degress from actual accredited colleges that is.

[Bingo Jerry]

we are cowtowing to the tirrany of the minority. We are letting evolutionists and God haters of all stripes dictate their version of the beginning of the world to us.

God help us when we allow the majority rule to dictate what's in school. Curriculums would consist of Introduction to Eating at McDonalds, Advanced Britney Spears Appreciation and Creationism 101.

[Bingo Jerry]

When I was taught man evolved from an ape like creature in class, I realized the religion of most scientist is not compatible with being a true Christian.

i.e. your version of "true Christian" is not compatible with science.

[vpintheak]

Yeah, it sure would. Whatever.