Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
This is a familiar pattern; Nature with a capital N, Chance with a capital C etc.
Alright, who's gonna start the Thomas Dolby quips?...
Indeed, he claims unequivocally, "There is no 'me' inside my brain, there is only an ever-changing set of brain states, a distillation of history, emotion, instinct, experience, and the influence of other people -- not to mention chance."Let me swat the good doctor on the knees with a hammer a few times. Perhaps his impression of himself as an ever changing set of brain states will assume a more coherent, more continuous character. Perhaps he will even discover evidence of a "me" inside of him--as in, STOP HURTING ME!
Quackery <== evolution // ideology (( manmade )) - knowledge (( philosophy )) - technology // SCIENCE ==> creation !
Splifford the bat says: Always remember:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just ... say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse --- and corrupt ideological doctrines.
Er, uh, make that TWO winners!
I just read this review last night in NR; I'm so glad you posted it here, Heartlander. Thank you!
Chance -- all is "chance." Samuel Butler -- who G. B. Shaw regarded as the greatest English writer of the second half of the 19th century, was a very early critic of Charles Darwin's -- but not of Darwin's father, Erasmus Darwin's -- evolutionary theory. There were other notable theories as well; e.g., Lamarck's. Evolution had been one of those "big ideas" hanging in the air during the 18th and 19th centuries; but Charles Darwin's take on it was, to Butler, beyond the pale for he considered it hopelessly irrational -- because it relies entirely on Luck; i.e., random chance. Regarding Butler's criticism of Darwinian evolution, Jacques Barzun (in From Dawn to Decadence, 2000) writes:
"...it 'banishes mind from the universe,' while experience shows mind acting for results that it foresees. Mind is seconded by habit, which starts conscious and becomes unconscious. This composite cunning was the agency that Erasmus Darwin had proposed in his work on evolution, and Butler espouses it.... Butler also pointed out that to account for the origin of new species one must account for the origin of variation from the old, which nobody so far knew or has said anything about." [Emphasis added]
To my knowledge, nobody has yet done this. Instead, evolutionists want to talk about incredible abstractions, such as Richard Dawkin's "selfish gene" as the driver of "natural selection."
Darwin wants to avoid engaging in teleology -- that is, he maintains that there is no purpose or goal in view as the terminus of the evolutionary process. But then he goes and contradicts himself by saying that evolution serves the "survival of the fittest" -- which implies a goal or purpose.
If this is true, then what does material nature or selfish genes (which seem to lack conciousness, or at least the higher consciousness of moral -- willing, choosing -- thinking agents) have to do with working toward a goal of "fitness" or any other kind of goal? How did material nature or the gene get sufficient "mind" and "will" to work toward that "fitness" of species that is the supposed purpose of the evolutionary process? "Random" and "fit" are quite antithetical ideas. So how can the achievement of "fitness" be squared with a random process, which supposedly produces it? More dumb Luck?
It doesn't wash: For in Darwin's theory, "Luck" explicitly stands in the place of "Mind" -- its explanation banishes mind, so nature or selfish genes cannot be said to "have" mind, or purpose -- for purpose presupposes mind.... And yet we have nature ineluctibly moving toward "fitness."
I'm still waiting for Darwinists to explain this paradox to me.
The universe, physical and otherwise, one dimension or multiple dimensions, was created and constantly changes. We can experience only a very small portion of it in any given lifetime and we use our free will to determine which portions by the decisions and choices we make in everyday life. Each decision moves us towards possibilities and probabilities and away from others.
This scenario can work the same if everything we can ever experience already exists or if we are creating it as we go along, IMO.
Darwin wants to avoid engaging in teleology -- that is, he maintains that there is no purpose or goal in view as the terminus of the evolutionary process. But then he goes and contradicts himself by saying that evolution serves the "survival of the fittest" -- which implies a goal or purpose.
Similarly, Aquinas stated that nature working toward a goal shows the existence of God. Darwinists say it shows the existence of Chance.
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.