The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the heads up to your always excellent analysis!

I believe the distinction between science and religion is entirely the result of will, i.e. a separation doesn't exist except for convenience. And at the quantum and cosmological levels - resistance to looking beyond the natural realm is an unnecessary artificial restriction to scientific progress.

[edsheppa]

Humans do not "experience things" at the atomic or sub-atomic level.

If you mean directly experience, that would be true, but clearly we do indirectly experience them and they are demonstrably real. I guess your point is to show the unreliability, indeed almost the unreality, of our experiences. Since they are central to the antecedent of Arthur's argument, you're saying drawing conclusions about what must be real would be a mistake.

[The Toad]

The Hebrew word mistranslated as "day" is actually "measure of time".

Thanks. I didn't know that. The funny thing is that, since I was a kid, I decided that the first 7 days in the Bible did not have to be 24 hours long as generally assumed--tney could be millions, if not billions of years.

Personally, I do not necessarily think creationism and darwinism are incompatible with each other. After all, why couldn't God create "darwinism"?

[betty boop]

Indeed, it is clear from your dissertation it WON'T be a scientific ride.

Maybe not, longshadow. But then, science hardly holds the monopoly on Truth. Stick around, you might learn something -- if you or Balrog666 or any other disputant of your doctrine desires to push the envelope here. :^)

[riggedtosail]

You are assuming that the science of evolution has already been proved which is a danger in itself. Quite the opposite, each year we hear more and more about evolution science that has been proven false which has to make us rethink the theories themselves. There are real scientists studying the competing theories from both angles and every year we learn more. The key is to remove the bias from which both sides. One side believes the very word of the Bible, no death before sin, therefore evolution could not have occured. The other side, in general, rejects a devine creator, therefore evolution has to be the answer. Finally, you have a group in the middle, trying to bind faith with an evolution theory that has been taught over the last 50 years.

The more we learn about science taught as fact, not supported by evidence, the more we reject true science. Look at carbon dating, once thought to be the perfect dating mech. and now proved to be inaccurate past 5,000 years. Look at Mt Saint Helens, in several hours geological theories that stood as fact fell as events thought to have taken millions of years happened in a few hours. That should make is all rethink our theories because fact has now proved theory wrong. It should make us wonder what else we have wrong.

[betty boop]

I believe the distinction between science and religion is entirely the result of will, i.e. a separation doesn't exist except for convenience.

I've come to the same conclusion, Alamo-Girl -- the "convenience" for any human mind that has a preternatural preoccupation with classifying the objects of human experience into "categories" -- that sorts everything into predetermined boxes, so to speak. That is to say, to maintain the mania of seeing Reality only in its parts, thus avoiding even trying to see things "whole", at their source and as they express or "evolve" as the reality in which we all live (and move and have our being).

Such an exercise truly does make man the measure of all things. Yet it seems quite plain to me that the human mind and spirit can reach beyond such limitations -- which IMHO is necessary to the discovery of Truth. For man does not have it in his power to "constitute" or "define" Reality in a purely objective sense. Reality -- Aletheia or experienced, lived truth -- is the matrix in which he lives, and of which he is a (perhaps unwilling) participant, and of which he could be only the most partial observer on his best day....

[jejones]

The chemical DNA doesn't have the same constraints as semiconductors, so what difference does it make whether it's hard to create an electronic circuit that deals with a signal with four possible voltage levels instead of two? There's nothing magical about base four that makes it more complicated than base two. To represent an n-digit base four number, just use 2n bits. Ho hum. Happens every day.

I'm sorry. The ID proponents are the Uri Gellers of Christian apologetics, endlessly rubbing Paley's watch in hopes of making it tick again.

[Lev]

So unless factually demonstrated otherwise, streams can be considered to be unguided.

How would we demonstrate 'guidedness'? If a stream follows the shape of letter S or something else sort of 'intelligent', do we say it's guided?

[Southack]

"There's nothing magical about base four that makes it more complicated than base two. To represent an n-digit base four number, just use 2n bits."

That's correct, it isn't "magic"... but it is math.

Contrary to your claim (".3 orders of magnitude greater") above in this thread , Base 4 is a full order of magnitude more complex than Base 2.

And that has nothing to do with blind watchmakers...

[Southack]

"How would we demonstrate 'guidedness'? If a stream follows the shape of letter S or something else sort of 'intelligent', do we say it's guided?"

No, if the stream is being guided by a fireman at a fire, then it is being intelligently directed/guided.

On the other hand, if no intelligent entity is controlling it, then it is unguided.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your analysis! I wholeheartedly agree.

That is to say, to maintain the mania of seeing Reality only in its parts, thus avoiding even trying to see things "whole", at their source and as they express or "evolve" as the reality in which we all live (and move and have our being).

It saddens me that we cannot keep even fundamental perspective in science. How rarely it is for someone speaking of the age of the universe, to actually finish the sentence, i.e. the universe is 15 billion years old from our space time coordinates. And yet that distinction makes all the difference - in science and philosophy.

We run into the same brick wall ("there be dragons there") whenever we discuss consciousness, Bell's inequalities, inception of the universe and life, and null.

Sure, there is a point beyond measure where the seeker has entered the metaphysical - but, Jeepers!, why stop at the 20 yard line?!

[Arthur McGowan]

The concept of contingency does not depend on time.

And yes, there IS a reason to conclude that the First Cause is a person--because WE are persons. Nothing can give what it does not have.

[El Cid]

Re: Post 125

The Altruistic Premise of Communism/Socialism is dependent upon an abandonment of logic, which cannot be abandoned and so wreaks it havoc in consequences. The Communist paradigm of absolute control means they must, at given points, stifle the very innovation it takes for any society to progress. Societies either progress or regress, but they never stay the same. China is up against it once again with the Internet. They will stall if they don't give their people full access to the Internet, yet Communism cannot continue with full information exchange and open discussion.

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make, and its relevence to the observations that both the communist and nazi regimes exulted evolution. The Nazis enjoyed the 'scientific' support for their 'master race' thesis; as did the communists who desired to turn the state into the new god.

Whether they treat evolution as 'an inviolate religion' or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. It was crucial to justify the premise of their existance. In one case it was the Master Race that needed to dominate, in the other case it was the 'State' that needed to be exulted.

Go ask Osama, which post 118 reminds me of, whether accepting the existence of a Creator makes one reluctant to murder or not.

A pretty broadbrush you use to paint with. I suggest you read the Bible and maybe you can begin to learn to distinguish the chaff from the wheat.

Separate issues. I can't think of a system of thought that hasn't condoned some evil at some time.

You don't know Christ.
The invitation is open to everyone.

[jennyp]

My point is that you apparently refused to consider anything or anyone existing outside of the time/space/material universe.

Ah, well, I'll consider anything. Imagining things is fun. Fantasy is fun. But reality depends on what we see & what hangs together logically from that. Darn reality.

[El Cid]

Re: Post 144

Your ignorance is does not necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence. It does, however, clearly indicate a lack of knowledge. Many real sub-Kindergarten children are very intelligent but their lack of learning makes them ignorant. Time and the application of their intelligence in a genuine quest for knowledge will make them less ignorant. The same principles could apply to you - God willing.

We should all seek wisdom and the truth. I pray you find it someday.

[unspun]

Ah, well, I'll consider anything. Imagining things is fun. Fantasy is fun. But reality depends on what we see & what hangs together logically from that. Darn reality.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.... He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

["Glory" means substance, matter, weight.]

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."

Thank God for reality, however He has chosen any parts of it.

[unspun]

Thank God for reality, however He has chosen [to develop] any parts of it.

[jennyp]

The concept of contingency does not depend on time.

It doesn't? So, an event can be contingent on something that hasn't happened yet? Whoa!

And yes, there IS a reason to conclude that the First Cause is a person--because WE are persons. Nothing can give what it does not have.

Hmmm... So, God must have a belly button because we have belly buttons? God must have DNA because we have DNA? God must be material because we are material?

[jennyp]

But your point is well taken. There is a legitimate way to conceptually view even DNA instruction sets as being Base 2 at the lowest level.

So with that admitted, what does the preponderance of current scientific evidence point to for the creation of Base 2 programs, intelligent intervention -or- unaided, natural processes creating our software?

So far I can only think of two examples to draw upon - living things and man-made computers. The evidence already points to natural processes creating RNA & DNA. And as we've seen, on the level of coding systems there is ample evidence of fitness gradients that the different codes can climb to reach the current optimum ones.

The evidence-by-analogy from computers does point to imperfect designers, since that is what happened with manmade computers. But evolution, being a natural design process, is less-than-omniscient, just like the early programmers were. So IMO the computer analogy doesn't help us much in deciding between intelligent designers & natural evolutionary processes. Sorry!

[Arthur McGowan]

The concept of contingency does not depend on time.

It doesn't? So, an event can be contingent on something that hasn't happened yet? Whoa!

No. I meant that one being can be contingent on another, both existing simultaneously.

And yes, there IS a reason to conclude that the First Cause is a person--because WE are persons. Nothing can give what it does not have.

Hmmm... So, God must have a belly button because we have belly buttons? God must have DNA because we have DNA? God must be material because we are material?

Of course not. That's primitive thinking. God must be greater and more perfect than we are, in order for us to be what we are. What he cannot be is something less than we are.