The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism

First Things ^ | Phillip E. Johnson

[D-fendr]

Where matter is favorable, life emerges.

You could describe how this occurs, like you can describe how lightning occurs, but it cannot be fully known using material alone.

Materialism, scientific or otherwise, is a subset of reality.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

You take your name seriously and follow the pattern of the true MugWump’s by straddling the fence. Your statement could be read to support or oppose either side in the debate. What is the 62 for?

[Hajman]

I hope you know this view is hopeless when it comes to physics: we will never "see" anything as it happens, all we get is dots on film, or a "tic" from a Geiger counter. We usually get it many microseconds after the event we're studying. The very concept of "simultaneity" starts to creak at these scales.

And I hope you realize the difference between 'observering' the event (to the best ability that we can) and observing the after-effect of an event. Much of science is based on the first, Macro Evolution is based on the second. Even much of what we see with the first we understand to be theory (such as in Quantum Mechanics). Our concepts of the event itself may be incorrect, and we may replace it with a better one. This extends to Macro Evolution as well.

-The Hajman-

[supercat]

A photosensitive cell only needs to develop once in order for photosensitive cells to exist.

If that were the case, the arguments favoring evolution would be much more clear-cut. Unfortunately, that is far from the case.

Suppose an individual of some species has a random mutation on one of its #4 chromosomes which causes the development of photosensitive cells. This trait will be present in half of this individual's offspring, 1/4 of its offspring's offspring, etc. Unless the gene improves the reproductive success rate of those individuals possessing it, it's unlikely to ever become widespread.

Also, I'm curious: are there any pairs of animal species with different numbers of chromosomes which have ever been inter-bred so as to yield fertile offspring which could in turn yield further offspring, etc.? If not, that would suggest that the only way a species could evolve into another with a different number of chromosomes would be to have the same mutation simultaneously hit enough individuals to produce a sufficient breeding stock of the new species. I have seen no mechanism proposed by which that could take place.

[rdb3]

I tell you what. The only evidence that you have demonstrated so far is your massive disdain for we so-called "Creationists."

You care not for people of faith or their opinion, nor do you respect them for it.

However, in order to take the evolutionary stance on how we got here takes a massive amount of FAITH. Guess it's just a matter of what you have that faith in, isn't it?

[rdb3]

Au contraire!

To believe that every living creature began with some sort of primordial ooze takes faith of titanic proportions!

Not to worry though. I keep my eyes on Darwinians.

Believe that.

[Exnihilo]

How can you not see in your above statement EXACTLY what Prof. Johnson was talking about. For you all the evidence is viewed through a materialst lens. OF COURSE we see the increasing sophistication in the fossil record. The issue is HOW did it get there? Who or what was the information source which produced that massive increase in sophistication? You are talking like the increase in sophistication itself is proof that evolution did it all.

I could not have said it better myself. Thank you! I've given up trying to debate jlogajan. He/She doesn't seem very interested in substantive debate. He/She seems more interested in adhoc assumptions and childish name calling. Such is life. Again, thank you for putting it so succinctly.

[aquawrench]

Believe what you want, the truth is what will remain.
To presume that there is no creator in order to perform objective science is to short change what the scientist sets out to do in the first place, right? If this is not true, then the 'scientist' is actually so sort of propagandist.

[Exnihilo]

OK, so tell us: What DO you believe, exactly?

I believe that natural evolution is incapable of generating specified complexity as found in biological life. There is absolutely ZERO scientific basis for believing otherwise. Materialists ASSUME that it is capable of this because it MUST be since they assume materialism a priori. That fossils exist, that fossils are of greater complexity higher in the strata is not what is at debate. What is at debate is HOW this increase in biological complexity came about. I believe that it could NOT have come about naturally and that it is the result of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, in whatever way said intelligence does the designing. Please, for the love of god, go buy a book on ID and read it.

[Exnihilo]

I'll keep this in mind when I next hear someone babbling on about "breeds" of dogs such as the legendary Mastiff and the mythical Chihuahua. Such morphological changes, being completely undemonstrated, must therefore be a lie by Big Darwinism.

Wow. If ignorance about Darwinian evolution is really this wide spread, and this fundamentally inept, the ID movement will have no problem trouncing the opposition. Man! Thanks for the laugh.

[Exnihilo]

So, Kyrie, if natural laws could be suspended by these otherworlders whenever they feel like it, then what would happen to science?

Did you even read the entire article? Nobody has suggested that the laws of nature need to be "suspended". What Dr. Johnson and others are contesting is the view that nature and ONLY nature is capable of and responsible for biological diversity.

[Dumb_Ox]

So, Kyrie, if natural laws could be suspended by these otherworlders whenever they feel like it, then what would happen to science?

I don't see the problem here. If the natural physical laws are changed, the scientific theory would have to change in order to describe the new properties of the phenomena in question. (assuming these changes in laws don't make the universe fly apart and kill us all) Moreover, good scientists can't make definitive, incontrovertible claims about universal law, as natural science is a tentative, inductive endeavour, much like engineering and invention.

[jennyp]

Did you even read the entire article? Nobody has suggested that the laws of nature need to be "suspended". What Dr. Johnson and others are contesting is the view that nature and ONLY nature is capable of and responsible for biological diversity.

I've read it several times over the years. Johnson wants us to believe that a supernatural person manipulated the genes of our ancestors to create us. Supernatural. If the Intelligent Designer was not supernatural - if they were simply some other natural alien species with genetic engineering technology (like the Raelians and Medved believe), then they wouldn't be worth worshipping, would they?

And of course, worship of an all-powerful father figure is precisely what Johnson is trying to preserve in his quest to save society from his bogeyman "materialism".

[jennyp]

I don't see the problem here. If the natural physical laws are changed, the scientific theory would have to change in order to describe the new properties of the phenomena in question. (assuming these changes in laws don't make the universe fly apart and kill us all)

Yes, but ID assumes the existence of a supernatural person, who uses their intellect to selectively suspend the laws of nature at a time & place of their choosing or their whim. There's no way you could develop a science that purports to predict this God's choices. Science then becomes an attempt to "get along" with this personality. Science becomes supernatural politics.

If there's one god, then science becomes an attempt to learn God's personality in order to learn how God arrives at His decisions to step in & manipulate the natural world ("perform miracles"), and engineering becomes the study of persuasion, focusing specifically on persuading someone with God's particular personality.

IOW, science & engineering become psychology.

OTOH, if there are a panoply of gods, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, then science becomes an attempt to learn how all these Gods arrive at Their decisions to perform miracles, and engineering becomes the study of how best to play one God off of another, how to form alliances with groups of Gods, how to persuade or prevent your non-allied Gods from doing miracles to thwart your purposes, how to schmooze the right Gods, what's the proper ettiquete for greasing the wheels of natural law (the proper prayers, incantations, sacrifices, etc.)

IOW, science becomes religion and engineering becomes sorcery & witchcraft. Or - science becomes the study of superpower politics (God & His angels vs. Lucifer & His minions & us caught in the middle like a tiny nation), and engineering becomes the kind of cold-war era political calculation a 3rd world country would have done.

[week 71]

You have made a noble effort to point out the transparent gaps in the theory of evolution, however it is a lost cause. Its like trying to tell a young earth creationist that the earth is more than 10000 years old. Even if the gaps are unquestioneably closed the evolutionist would likewise never be able to change the mind of a creationist. The emperorr is indeed naked at this time, but who knows maybe someday the science will discover the answers. What would be nice, would be if the sciencetific community admitted publicly that there are still some develish problems with the theory.