The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[El Cid]

Re: Post 270

I'm sorry, but I infer from this that you don't know what you're talking about. Lysenko advocated a flavor of Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics, as if Arnold Schwarzenegger's children, if he has any, will grow up to have sixty-inch chests and twenty-five inch biceps because their father pumped iron). Stalin liked Lysenko's crackpot proposals, which directly contradicted Darwinism,

maybe this isn't "Darwinism", but it sure seems a closer fit to 'evolutionism' than 'creationism'

because they fit in better with communist doctrine, and one of the great botanists of all time, Nikolai Vavilov, died in prison for holding to Mendelian genetics.

No denial that Stalin, and all the communist leaders (from Pol Pot to Mao to Castro) were whacked out - that tends to happen when you deny God.
But my point was that Darwin's hypothesis of evolution was seized by both the Nazis and Communists to support the fact that their systems were supported by 'science'. In one case it was to champion the cause of the survival of the fittest (i.e., the master race), and in the second it was to tear down any accountability to God - and to replace this void with the 'state'.
You may cling to darwinism as your truth, but don't pretend that this philosophy did not hold an esteemed place in the hearts of communists. Karl Marx is on record as having wanted to dedicate his book, 'Das Kapital' to Darwin (which Darwin declined), Mao Tse-tung regarded Darwin as presented by the German Darwinists as the foundation of Chinese scientific socialism, and other communists championed various off-shoots of different brands of godless evolution (such as the Larmackism you mentioned earlier).

[jennyp]

"In the beginning ... grace and truth."

"That which ... Jesus Christ."

Sorry, incantations just don't do it for me.

[jennyp]

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

What does that mean, exactly? Can you give me an example?

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.

So, "perfection" is a substance, that can be divided up & distributed among people, but cannot be created or grown from lesser amounts of perfection? Is there like a Law of Conservation of Perfection?

[captain11]

And that is because it is a fact that every machine invented by man is an imitation of a natural process taking place within man. Base Math 4 doesn't imitate our computers, our computer imitate the natural process. Got it backwards.

Base 4 math requires neither computers, nor natural processes to imitate. It just is. For DNA computation, it provides an excellent combination of flexibility, compact representation, and simplicity of machine implementation. In the past, there may have been organisms that computed using other bases (2 being by far the most likely, IMHO, but they didn't survive). The alien recovered at Roswell had DNA with 8 nucleotide bases, and computed in octal.

[unspun]

incantation 1. Ritual recitation of verbal charms or spells to produce a magic effect. 2. a. A formula used in ritual recitation; a verbal charm or spell. 2. b. A conventionalized utterance repeated without thought or aptness; a formula: the pious incantations of the administration.

Suggest you broaden your horizons. Propositional reason exists with or without you, as does God.

[unspun]

So, "perfection" is a substance, that can be divided up & distributed among people, but cannot be created or grown from lesser amounts of perfection? Is there like a Law of Conservation of Perfection?

You are a material girl, aren't you?

[captain11]

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

What does that mean, exactly? Can you give me an example?

Ummm...how about a parent and child. Does that work?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The thread of evolutionism -- by Patrick Henry

[unspun]

On the evening of that first day of the week, [the third day, after Jesus was crucified] when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

[Arthur McGowan]

Your questions are not honest, respectful, or sincere. If you are SERIOUS about understanding scholastic ontology, there are loads of good textbooks around.

[Southack]

"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."

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.

What evidence? Natural processes programming Base 4 (or even Base 2, if you are of a mind to look at the sequences of nucleotides that way) DNA?! Oh please!

Now, we do have evidence of Base 2 systems being programmed, but by Man's intelligent intervention, not by natural processes, but somehow I doubt that's the sort of thing that you want to hear!

[AndrewC]

But reality depends on what we see & what hangs together logically from that. Darn reality.

You can't be serious with this assertion.

[VadeRetro]

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.

Didn't happen, and it requires a truly profound ignorance of what the geologic column really looks like believe that it did.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Phaedrus]

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.

Indeed we do, but here's a physicist who isn't afraid to trod Forbidden Territory and he's no slouch with the math, either. Were it in my power, this book would be required reading in all the public high schools in the land. It is also, appropriately, a beautiful book.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for the link to the book! I've heard about The Physics of Consciousness but haven't read it yet. But I will. Hugs!

[betty boop]

The Creationists make religion ridiculous, with the absurd notion that the STORY of Creation is the same as the FACT of Creation ex nihilo, which is all that Scripture teaches.

Great point, Arthur McGowan, and well worth stressing.

Evolutionary theory makes a strong case for the "spontaneous" generation of increasingly more complex biological forms from very simple forms. But what it does not do is account for how specifically human consciousness can have arisen from lower forms which appear not to possess consciousness of other than the most rudimentary sort, if even that. Consciousness remains a mystery that appears to be inexplicable in purely materialist terms. In this sense, Darwinist theory is woefully incomplete.

[balrog666]

Thanks for the ping, balrog666

Enjoy the discussion. ;^)

[betty boop]

And that is because it is a fact that every machine invented by man is an imitation of a natural process taking place within man. Base Math 4 doesn't imitate our computers, our computer imitate the natural process.

Arguably, the mind is somewhat more than a digital processor. It does more than computation, although apparently Strong AI theory disputes this. Which is why I'm not holding my breath for the invention of a "thinking machine" anytime soon. Do you think consciousness is a purely natural process, in the sense of having a purely material basis?

[Sentis]

Hostile maybe out of my depth No.

Your argument is meaningless information theory is useless in this debate. Regardless of how DNA operates it does not process information (this means it is not a program). Rather DNA ia a template, it expresses information already there in the same way crystals do when they grow. DNA and Crystals have much in common and in a way Life can be seen as a self replicating crystal structure.


DNA is not a base 4 mathematical program it is rather a base 4 chemical template.

Why is the difference between processing information and expressing information important? This is because we can see the expression of chemical information in many common chemical reactions.


We as humans use crystalline structures to build computers and in the same way DNA can be used as an organic computer but in nature both are merely templates. By your logic crystals (which form naturally and spontaneously without an outside creator and which hold massive amounts of chemical information) also must be a proof of outside intervention.... they aren't. However they can be used to process information and to store data the same way DNA does. This processing and storage capacity is more a process initiated by humans rather than an property of the crystal or dna chain.

Yes there is a programmer and that programmer is a man who has learned to use the properties of a natural chemical product.


Your argument should be more along the lines of How DNA increases its informational capacity rather than how it processes or expresses info. However the information increasing capacity of DNA has little to do with the structure of its template but rather more to do with it's ability to form intricate long chains and with outside forces that rearrange this structure.