Replies

Yockey must have had an epiphany between 1996 and 2000, because he has clearly come down on the side of life's origin being natural.

I find that most people who doubt evolution and naturalism do not understand feedback. they cannot understand a system that is controlled by consequences rather than by antecedents.

While participating in a conservative forum I see various manifestations of this. Many people do not understand capitalism and the marketplace. They do not understand that the flow of goods and services, and even the invention and production of new products is managed by the invisible hand of results. If it were otherwise -- if correct market behavior could be anticipated by logical analysis -- then we should all be socialists, and we should all bow to five year plans.

Science is also a marketplace. The progress and management of science is controlled by results, not by the steady application of rational propositions.

And life is also a marketplace. This is the one truly great insight of Darwin's. And he borrowed it from Adam Smith. The reason you can't figure out the source of life's information is that the coding is done by the marketplace, the result of countless feints and maneuvers, and their consequences.

Your statement that God is alive by any rational definition of life leads to an interesting problem, since you also appear to believe that life only comes from life. Clearly not all life comes from life. The obvious solution to this conundrum -- God is outside time and without a beginning -- is just a loophole manufactured to escape from logic. It is no more compelling than the assumption that physical existence is outside of time, or that God and physical reality are coextensive.

It will be interesting to see what you get from Yockey through a direct, personal contact – because, as betty boop has shown – his remarks in 2005 were like his remarks in 1996.

I find that most people who doubt evolution and naturalism do not understand feedback. they cannot understand a system that is controlled by consequences rather than by antecedents...

Whereas I agree it is a problem, I do not see it as an either/or on consequences and antecedents. My preference would be for all four Aristotlean causes to remain on the table during an investigation.

Your statement that God is alive by any rational definition of life leads to an interesting problem, since you also appear to believe that life only comes from life. Clearly not all life comes from life. The obvious solution to this conundrum -- God is outside time and without a beginning -- is just a loophole manufactured to escape from logic. It is no more compelling than the assumption that physical existence is outside of time, or that God and physical reality are coextensive.

I certainly do not agree that “not all life comes from life” nor do I agree to the implication that God is not alive. Metaphysical naturalists (atheists) along with others who define life as one or more cell are begging the question by excluding non-spatial, non-temporal and non-corporeal existence.