"....in the ultimate sense, science is the reduction of objective multiplicity to subjective unity. But the only reason this is possible is because the human intellect mirrors the unity of creation. Our mind operates the way it does because we live in a cosmos, which is to say, an ordered totality. And the cosmos is an ordered totality because it exhibits "nonlocal" internal relations. Because of this, every part of the cosmos embodies and participates in the whole, just as every gene contains the blueprint for the whole body. Again, the cosmos is thoroughly entangled with itself, which is why we may know anything .... It is how and why Man may be the microcosmos that he is.
Now, metaphysics is all about first principles. .... my intention is to have a completely consistent metaphysic, so that, in order to answer any question, I need only "return to first principles" to answer it. In this sense, Darwinism is a lie, because it cannot furnish any consistent first principles. In fact, whenever a committed Darwinist tries, they end up making self-refuting statements right out of the box....
But so too, in my opinion, do literal "creationists." Of course you are free to insist upon young earth creationism, but you must know that it is going to contradict so much evidence that you will essentially have to split your mind in two. You will live in a scientific world with all of its blessings, and yet, a part of you will have to reject it, or at least not be able to fully integrate it into your belief system. ....
....For better or worse, the way my mind is built, it seeks unity or wholeness, which is a very different thing from "unicity." In other words, to simply accept an ideology -- whether scientific or religious -- and superimpose it on the world would be an example of unicity. Such a worldview will be "consistent" but it will not be complete, as it will necessarily have to omit a lot of details and anomalies.
Or, I could accept both science and religion, and not worry about the lack of reconciliation. Such a world view will be more complete, but it will lack consistency.
[We wish] to have a maximum of completeness and consistency -- at least as much as Gödel will allow. Which is a lot, once you accept the implications of his theorems, one of which is that truth is prior to our fragmentary logical "proofs" of it.
Two (of the many) interesting comments:
7/30/2008 11:27:00 PM Magnus Itland said...
"I have no doubt that there is a good scientific explanation for macroevolution. Why? Because this is God's mode of operation. He does not resort to "magic" unless it is to make an important point. Notice in the Gospels how each miracle is a sign with a deeper meaning, which nourishes the soul. I see the same thing in my own life. The way things happen at the right time and place is virtually never "magic" but always miraculous. I also see the same thing in history. Look at how various prophecies are fulfilled without the use of vulgar magic. It would simply be out of character for God to use magic to create the species when he could make an understandable process for it. The latter would simply be a more intelligent design.
In other words, macroevolution is inherently understandable (given enough data) because it is part of cosmos, and cosmos is understandable because it is made by God, and we were made in his image. God's "reason" in the material world is understandable by humans and not by any other species. How is that not proof of God and of a "special creation" (in one sense of the word at least) of the human spirit?
The universe will always be mysterious beyond our understanding; but the fact that we can understand it at all is an even greater mystery."
8/04/2008 10:41:00 AM Ray Ingles said...
- The point is that a "species" is a fuzzy concept. The gulls on either end of the ring are so different that they can't interbreed. The only reason they are considered to be the same species is the existence of the intermediates that they can interbreed with. If there's an 'archetype' that governs species, then the boundaries between them in the real world are fuzzy, and can be crossed.
Once you understand that, the transitions in the fossil record leap out at you.
I’ve read your links and have avoided debating you in the past. Simply I don’t think you’re ready to truly wrestle w/ all the scientific ‘facts’ you have learned. There are many accepted paradigms employed in the world b/c they seem right and they seem to fit together. Modern science can always downplay and discard that which contradicts.
Young Earth Creation and the Biblical perspective will never make sense to you as long as you try to fit it all into long ages. Modern mainstream science does not like to consider nor discuss pesky facts which oppose their favored theories [i.e. starlight and radio-isotope dating methods].
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Conversely if you begin looking for the many missed, overlooked, ignored and ‘refuted’ scientific datum you may begin to see that ‘every man is a liar’ but not God, nor His Son, nor His Word.
It’s all a question of interpretation of the data. The majority of the fossil record was laid down during the global flood described in Genesis. The hydroplate theory explains more anomalies than any other theory regarding natural history.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
But the natural man who has not had his spirit infused through a spiritual rebirth [Romans 10:10] will never accept the things of God nor begin to fully understand His Words.
I expect that you won’t read or fully consider the links provided - esp. so if you’ve not spent any time reading the Bible first. Oh and I do know that all this will be widely ridiculed - esp. so for those w/ many degrees, accomplishments, the pride of life, etc. You see the Bible warned me about that too.
The truly beautiful thing about Gagdad Bob (to me at least) is the sheer "expansiveness" of his soul, in the same manner as Aristotle's, who famously postulated that "All men desire to know."
Yet it seems — as it turns out — that not all men do actually desire to know — "knowing" here understood as human cognitive and existential recognition of and response to the divine ldea (Logos) that underlies the One unified All of cosmic existence, including one's Self.
Probably few people are engaged at this level of the problem, which is an "equal opportunity" problem in the sense that the answer to it confronts all of us humans "equally" in the end....
Arguably we, made in the Image, were intended to be "better" than that basic level of cognitive functioning....
I'm so glad to hear Gödel's name come up on this question. A genius of mathematics, it was he who first pointed out that there really are absolute limits to mathematical models of the world, of Reality. He proposed, in effect, that all human spacetime modelings of the universe are "incomplete" in principle.
In this sense, Gödel was evidently opposed to the view of Baron Laplace, who proposed that, supposing that all knowledge of existent things and the rules that govern them were instantly knowable, present to the mind, then that mind could know "everything," and so reliably "predict" the "future."
To which Gödel might possibly have replied: That's one-helluva 'what-if'!!!" On purely logical grounds. Yikes. Whatta nightmare!!! Only an insane person could propose such a thing, and make it "normative" as the basic reality in which sane human beings actually have to live!
And so here we are: In the Public Square, exercising our First Amendment Rights.
But to what purpose? If We the People can't agree about that, then we are effectively doomed.
Thank you ever so much, dear Matchett-PI, for the absolutely splendid tutorial you offer on this subject matter! And a definite hat-tip to the remarkable Gagdad Bob, a/k/a/, Dr. Robert Godwin, clinical psychologist and philosopher.