The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[js1138]

The concept of will is not compatible with the classical conception of physical processes.

Physics has not been compatible with classical physics for over a hundred years.

[Lev]

Questions for my old friends PH and Lev: Do the higher primates have this sort of "ineffable," intangible, yet completely real thing, such that we can say they have mind, consciousness, will? To what extent are the higher primates capable of revising and reshaping their world, at will? If they don't have this ability now, do you think it is conceivable that the higher primates will be able to do this in the future?

They are capable of revising and reshaping their world to lesser degree than we are, to greater degree than other animals. Do you agree? What does this tell you?
Don't know about the future. Radical improvements are, IMO, unlikely, they are probably stuck at a local maximum.

[betty boop]

All in all, I'm glad to be human, and although I recognize that the apes and I had the same ancestors, I don't invite that simian trash to family reunions.

LOL PH!!! ;^)

It is precisely the presumed "common ancestor" that I find so unpersuasive. To me, it is an hypothesis, a conjecture, a notion, but not a bona fide theory. For theory, as science understands this term, refers to "a conception of nature of some set of phenomena that fits all the facts and that has survived the tests of time and experiment. Experiments give us raw data. Theory, and only theory, gives us understanding."

The common ancestor has "survived the tests of time," but only as what is really little more than an orthodox doctrine or opinion. There is no possible way that the so-called common ancestor could have ever been the subject of experimental tests. Just because nature seems to display certain uniformities or "patterns" doesn't necessarily mean that the only thing that can explain the similarities we see across species is inheritance from a single "common ancestor," plus natural selection.

Presumably, the physical laws of the universe are constant over time. They do not change or "evolve." Because of the uniformities we do observe in nature, I would be very surprised to learn that such an important sector of nature as the biological kingdom would play by different rules.

But I am really referring to Macroevolution here, which is where my chief (and perhaps sole) objection lays. I can easily accept Microevolution, and see no reason why natural selection should not have a role to play there....

I continue to remain unpersuaded about your simian forebears, as you can see, Patrick Henry. But it's always a pleasure to chat with you!

[Southack]

"A randomly generated code with mutation and selection would be expected to show a tree-like structure, which is what we generally observe."

Are you claiming that this only happened once? That only one organism was formed purely at random, and that all subsequent organisms were formed due to mutations (and natural selection, of course) in the one?

And if you aren't claiming that, wouldn't we see any number of entirely different organisms created at random without any code re-use among them whatsoever, as well as mutated and selected derivatives of all of the above "original" creations?

I mean, either random natural processes are involved in root/base/first/original species or they aren't (of course, even so one couldn't rule them out for subsequent sub-species/derivations of the above).

But for the original formations, what precisely are you claiming here?

[js1138]

Yes, VR; and I believe I have two, not just one, guardian angels....

I do not wish to rude or offensive, but I have a deep problem with the concept of guardian angels. What do they guard? Our physical selves?

I spent most of a decade dealing with families that abuse and neglect their children. And these were American kids, infinitely lucky by world standards. It always struck me that angles who guarded healthy and capable adults should visit the ghetto occasional and guard unlucky children.

[Diamond]

People who seek the TRVTH outside the realm of verifiable knowledge give me the heebie jeebies, like the folks who flew airplanes into the WTC.

I have a simple way of catagorizing people. There is a scale of good and evil...

I don't know how to say this without offending you, and that is not my intent, but how can you say "good" and "evil" without giving yourself the "heebie jeebies"?

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

I continue to remain unpersuaded about your simian forebears, as you can see, Patrick Henry. But it's always a pleasure to chat with you!

I agree that it would be nice to have more evidence for human ancestry. We have lots more now than was available a generation ago, but nowhere near as much as I would like. I'm hoping that the picture will become even more clear as more researchers get out there and dig. These things take time. But at each stage of our inquiries, we have to do the best we can with what we have. Oook, oook!

[js1138]

how can you say "good" and "evil" without giving yourself the "heebie jeebies"?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that good and evil are defined by the whim of god? If so, wouldn't it be wise to put our fingers to the wind and make sure that God is really the biggest kid on the block. I mean, if goodness is not defined outside of power, what's the point. Just kiss the ring of the most powerful deity.

[Diamond]

As for the reuse of code argument, much of the 'code reuse' makes no programming sense. For example, why should almost all higher animals use the same chromophore in all their visual pigments, to span the visual spectrum from the ultraviolet to the far red? It puts enormous constraints on the design of the rest of the protein. Organic chemists can do far better by just changing a few atoms in the chromophore, without messing with the whole protein sequence. Koji Nakanishi can make the same butterfly fly to any color of flower he desires, by a few minor chemical changes in their visual pigment. Yet 'life' took a far more circuitous route.

If life were designed, 'idiotic design' would be a more descriptive term than intelligent design. If a human genome were a program you'd written, you'd be fired.

A metaphysical, (non scientific) argument against creation such as this based upon your own expectations of what a designer would or would not do, or should or should not do, or is capable or incapable of doing does not constitute a proof of evolution or even evidence of evolution.

Cordially,

[betty boop]

They are capable of revising and reshaping their world to lesser degree than we are, to greater degree than other animals. Do you agree? What does this tell you?

I agree, with the qualification that the ability of the higher primates to "revise and reshape" their world is extraordinarily limited, though perhaps greater than that of "lesser" species. But all that tells me is that different species are differently "abled." There's nothing here that tells me with a certainty that the higher primates will become "abled" as we humans are, given just a few million years or so, natural selection or no. That is a conjecture, a belief.

[betty boop]

I do not wish to rude or offensive, but I have a deep problem with the concept of guardian angels. What do they guard? Our physical selves?

You probably noted that I was being flippant with this remark, going for a little humor to get VR to lighten up a bit.... I take no offense whatever, and don't think you're being rude, js1138.

But since you ask a serious question, my understanding is the mission of guardian angels is to have the "care of souls," not of the physical body. Certainly "my two" have been giving me every reason to suspect they have always been and still are very worried about mine! :^)

[js1138]

My last post was kind of abrupt. I should add that good and evil as concepts do not require a lot of intellectual horsepower, nor even much experience with life. Children figure it out pretty quickly. It only gets complicated when conscience gets in the way of something we want, and we start rationalizing. I could sociobilogical and try to prove that conscience and empathy arose for evolutionary reasons, but I don't rely on that kind of explanation.

[PatrickHenry]

There's nothing here that tells me with a certainty that the higher primates will become "abled" as we humans are, given just a few million years or so, natural selection or no. That is a conjecture, a belief.

Not entirely a wild guess, however. There is the evidence of our own sweet species, which appeared rather recently (geologically speaking). So it would seem that these things can happen. But as has been pointed out earlier, now that we're in the way, it's unlikely that our distant cousins (or whatever) will be able to make any progress in taking over our turf.

[js1138]

...my understanding is the mission of guardian angels is to have the "care of souls," not of the physical body.

Is that a common or usual understanding, and if so, why is it so rarely expressed in public?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have made no comments about original organisms, only about evolutionary descent. Similar phenotypes generally have similary genotypes (not always.) Creationism or ID equally well explain the case where each organism has a unique genetic makeup. That isn't what is observed.

[betty boop]

The concept of will is not compatible with the classical conception of physical processes.... Physics has not been compatible with classical physics for over a hundred years.

So I am learning, js1138. Still if I'm understanding QM correctly, it appears that we humans are "quantum systems," too; and as such, part of and coextensive with the universal quantum system. If humans can reshape their world, make great scientific discoveries, etc., etc., then there has to be something that can account for such abilities. It seems to me that would have to be consciousness, mind. (Walker does an elaborate and extensive demonstration of the mind/brain as a quantum system itself. He actually derives an elegant equation to show how the two "connect." If my HTML were up to rendering scientific notation, I'd post that equation here, for your delectation.) And even if the Copenhagen School "doesn't want to go there," it seems that, inevitably, they must -- if they want to understand the implications of their own theory.

[Southack]

"Creationism or ID equally well explain the case where each organism has a unique genetic makeup. That isn't what is observed."

Do you mean Evolution and ID explain the case equally well??

[js1138]

...then there has to be something that can account for such abilities. It seems to me that would have to be consciousness, mind.

I do not deny the existence of mind. What I object to is characterization of material as having limited properties. We have no way to know the limits of material existence -- so the use of "materialism" and "materialst" as pejoratives is simply ignorant.

[VadeRetro]

Yes, VR; and I believe I have two, not just one, guardian angels....

And you're probably wearing them to a frazzle.

[betty boop]

Thank you, Alamo-Girl. I bet you would just love The Physics of Consciousness. You mentioned recently that you thought the next breakthroughs in science would come through QM, information theory, and mathematics. Walker relies heavily on these, especially on the first two, in presenting his case.