Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE
By Jean F. Drew
“The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle—autopoiesis (self-making)—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations. Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry.”
So begins Alex Williams’ seminal article, Life’s Irreducible Structure — Autopoiesis, Part 1. In the article, Williams seeks to show that all living organisms are constituted by a five-level structured hierarchy that cannot be wholly accounted for in terms of naturalistic explanation. Rather, Williams’ model places primary emphasis on the successful transmission and communication of relevant biological information.
Note here that, so far, science has not identified any naturalistic source for “information” within the universe, biological or otherwise. And yet it appears that living organisms remain living only so long as they are “successfully communicating” information. When that process stops, the organism dies; i.e., becomes subject to the second law of thermodynamics — the consequences of which the now-deceased organism had managed to optimally distance itself from while alive.
Evidently Williams finds Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity arguments insufficiently general to explain biological complexity and organization, and so seeks a different explanation to generically characterize the living organism. Yet his proposed autopoietic model — of the “self-making,” i.e., self-maintaining or self-organizing and therefore living system — itself happens to be irreducibly complex. That is to say, on Williams’ model, any biological organism from microbe to man must be understood as a complete, functioning “whole,” transcending in the most profound way any definition of a particular organism as the “mere” sum of its constituting “material” parts.
Further, the idea of the “whole” must come prior to an understanding of the nature and function of the constituting parts. Williams terms this idea of the “whole” as inversely causal meta-information; as such, it is what determines the relations and organization of all the parts that constitute that “whole” of the living organism — a biological system in nature.
Just one further word before we turn to Williams’ autopoietic model. To begin with the supposition of “wholeness” flies in the face of methodological naturalism, the currently favored model of scientific investigation, and arguably the heart of Darwinist evolutionary theory. For methodological naturalism is classical and mechanistic (i.e., “Newtonian”) in its basic presuppositions: Among other things, it requires that all causation be “local.” Given this requirement, it makes sense to regard the “whole is merely the sum of its parts” as a valid statement — those parts being given to human understanding as the objects of direct observation of material events. The presumption here is that, given enough time, the piling up of the parts (i.e., of the “material events”) will eventually give you the description of the whole. Meanwhile, we all should just be patient. For centuries if need be, as a collaborator once suggested to me (in regard to abiogenesis. See more below).
Yet subsequent to classical physics came the astonishing revelations of relativity and quantum theory, both of which point to “non-local” causation. The transmission of information across widely spatially-separated regions (from the point of view of the biological organism as an extended body in time) so as to have causative effect in the emergence of biological life and its functions is decidedly a “non-local” phenomenon. Indeed, non-local causation seems ubiquitous, all-pervasive in the living state of biological organisms, as we shall see in what follows.
Williams’ Autopoietic Model
Williams lays out the five-level, autopoietic hierarchy specifying the living system this way (parenthetical notes added):
(i) components with perfectly pure composition (i.e., pure elements)
(ii) components with highly specific structure (i.e., molecules)
(iii) components that are functionally integrated (i.e., components work cooperatively toward achieving a purpose or goal)
(iv) comprehensively regulated information-driven processes (DNA, RNA)
(v) inversely-causal meta-informational strategies for individual and species survival (we’ll get to this in a minute)
Pictorially, the model lays out like this:
Figure 1 summarizes the five-level, hierarchical specification of any living organism, microbe to man. But how do we get a handle on what this hierarchy actually means?
An interesting way to look at the problem, it seems to me, is to look at the available potential “information content” of each of the five “levels” or “manifolds” of the hierarchy.
You’ll note that Figure 1 depicts an ascending arrow on the left labeled “complexity.” For our present purposes, we’ll define this as “algorithmic complexity,” understood as a function that maximally yields “information content.” If we can find complexity measures to plug into the model, we might gain additional insight thereby.
Fortunately, algorithmic complexity measures have been obtained for certain levels of the hierarchy; i.e., Level (i) and Levels (iv) and possibly Level (v). For the latter two, the measures were taken with respect to the living human being. Figure 1 can thus be expanded as follows:
Notes to Figure 2:
1 Gregory Chaitin: “My paper on physics was never published, only as an IBM report. In it I took: Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s laws, the Schrödinger equation, and Einstein’s field equations for curved spacetime near a black hole, and solved them numerically, giving ‘motion-picture’ solutions. The programs, which were written in an obsolete computer programming language APL2 at roughly the level of Mathematica, were all about half a page long, which is amazingly simple.”
On this basis, Chaitin has pointed out that the complexity we observe in living systems cannot be accounted for on the basis of the chemical and physical laws alone, owing to the paucity of their information content.
2 George Gilder: “In each of the some 300 trillion cells in every human body, the words of life churn almost flawlessly through our flesh and nervous system at a speed that utterly dwarfs the data rates of all the world’s supercomputers. For example, just to assemble some 500 amino-acid units into each of the trillions of complex hemoglobin molecules that transfer oxygen from the lungs to bodily tissues takes a total of some 250 peta operations per second. (The word “peta” refers to the number ten to the 15th power — so this tiny process requires 250 x 1015 operations.)
A Word about Abiogenesis
Darwin’s evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life. It takes life for granted, and then asks how it speciates. Moreover, the theory does not elaborate a description of the constitution of the individual living organism, such as Williams’ irreducibly complex/autopoietic (“IC/AP”) model proposes.It’s important to recognize that neither Darwin’s theory, nor Williams’ model, deals with the origin of life. It seems to me that evolution theory and ID are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. One deals with the species level, the other the biological structure of living individuals, the “building blocks” of species, as it were.
Yet there is tremendous hostility towards intelligent design on the part of many orthodox evolutionary biologists, which has gotten so bad in recent times that the more doctrinaire Darwinists have run to the courts for “protection” of their cherished beliefs (and interests personal and institutional), insisting that ID “is not science.” Judges are not scientists; in general they are ill-equipped to make judgments “on the merits” of scientific controversies. Yet they render judgments all the same, with profound implications for how science is to be taught. I fail to see how this redounds to the benefit of scientific progress.
If science is defined as materialist and naturalist in its fundamental presuppositions — the currently-favored methodological naturalism — then ID does not meet the test of “what is science?” For it does not restrict itself to the material, the physical, but extends its model to information science, which is immaterial. The problem for Darwinists seems to be that there is no known source of biological information within Nature as classically understood (i.e., as fundamentally Newtonian — materialist and mechanistic in three dimensions).
The problem of abiogenesis goes straight to the heart of this issue. Abiogensis is a hypothesis holding that life spontaneously arises from inert, non-living matter under as-yet unknown conditions. Although evolution theory does not deal with the problem of the origin of life, many evolutionary biologists are intrigued by the problem, and want to deal with it in a manner consistent with Darwinian methods; i.e., the presuppositions of methodological naturalism, boosted by random mutation and natural selection. That is, to assume that life “emerges” from the “bottom-up” — from resources available at Levels (i) and (ii) of the IC/AP model.
There have been numerous experiments, most of which have taken the form of laboratory simulations of “lightning strikes” on a properly prepared chemical “soup” (e.g., Urey, Miller, et al.). At least one such experiment managed to produce amino acids — fundamental building blocks of life (at the (ii) level of Williams’ hierarchy). But amino acids are not life. On Williams’ model, to be “life,” they’d need to have achieved at least the threshold of Level (iii).
For it is the presence of “functionally-integrated components” that makes life possible, that sustains the living organism in its very first “duty”: That it will, along the entire extension of its complete biological make-up (whether simple or highly complex), globally organize its component systems in such a way as to maximally maintain the total organism’s “distance” from thermodynamic entropy. An “organism” that couldn’t do that wouldn’t last as an “organism” for very long.
And so in order for the materialist interpretation of abiogenesis to be true, the “chemical soup” experimental model would have to demonstrate how inorganic matter manages to “exempt” itself from one of the two most fundamental laws of Nature: the second law of thermodynamics.
From cells on up through species, all biological organisms — by virtue of their participation in Levels (i) and (ii) — are subject to the second law right from creation. Indeed, they are subject to it throughout their life spans. A friend points out that the second law is a big arguing point for Macroevolutionists, who try to argue that the second law is irrelevent, i.e., doesn’t apply to living systems, because “it only applies to closed systems and not to open ones.” Thus they say that living systems in nature are “open” systems. But what this line of reasoning does not tell us is what such systems are “open” to.
And yet we know that every cell is subject to the second law — simply by needing to fuel itself, it subjects itself to the effects of entropy, otherwise known as heat death. And although it can and does stave off such effects for a while, doing so requires the cell or species constantly to deal with maintaining distance from entropy in all its living functional components, organized globally. Entropy plays a big part in all life — from cells to completed species.
When the successful communication of meta-information begins to slow down and break down, cells and species then begin to succumb to the effects of entropy, to which they have been subjected all their entire life. This is because they can no longer combat, or stay ahead of the “entropy curve,” due to inefficient communication processes and, thus, degradation of the maintenance procedures communicated to the cells via the meta-information system that is specific to each particular biological entity and to each particular species. After all, any species description is necessarily an informed description.
Yet another origin-of-life approach — the Wimmer abiogenesis experiment — is highly instructive. He managed to “create” a polio virus. He did so by introducing RNA information into a “cell-free juice,” and the polio virus spontaneously resulted.
Wimmer used actual DNA to synthesize polio RNA based on information about the polio virus RNA which is widely available, even on the internet. The RNA information was truly “pulled” from the DNA, which “resides” at the next-higher level. He could not synthesize RNA directly; he first had to synthesize the DNA from the raw information and then synthesize the polio RNA from the synthetic DNA.
Yet RNA information, like all information, is immaterial. In terms of the Williams’ hierarchy, clearly Wimmer had obtained an organism functioning at about Level (iii) — because it had sufficient information to propel it to that level, as “pulled” by the information available at the next-higher level where DNA information “resides” — Level (iv).
Unlike biological organisms expressing all five levels of the Williams model, the polio virus, though fully autonomous as an information processor (leading to its “successful communication” in Wimmer’s laboratory), somehow still doesn’t have everything it needs to be fully “autonomous” as a living being. A virus, for instance, is dependent on a living host in order to execute its own life program. As such, it is a sort of “quasi-life.” Shannon Information Theory helps us to clarify such distinctions.
Before we turn to Shannon, it’s worth mentioning that, according to H. H. Pattee and Luis Rocha, the issue of autonomy (and semiosis — the language and the ability to encode/decode messages) is a huge stumbling block to abiogenesis theory. For that kind of complexity to emerge by self-organizing theory, in the RNA world, the organism would have to involuntarily toggle back and forth between non-autonomous and autonomous modes, first to gather, and then to make use of information content as an autonomous living entity. The question then becomes: What tells it how and when to “toggle?” Further, it appears the source of the information content that can toggle non-life into life remains undisclosed.
Shannon Information Theory
The DNA of any individual life form is exactly the same whether the organism is dead or alive. And we know this, for DNA is widely used and proved reliable in forensic tests of decedents in criminal courts of law. And so we propose:
Information is that which distinguishes life from non-life/death.Information, paraphrased as “successful communication,” is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action which facilitates any successfully completed communication. Thus Shannon’s model describes the universal “mechanism” of communication. That is, it distinguishes between the “content” of a message and its “conduit”: The model is indifferent to the actual message being communicated, which could be anything, from “Don’t forget to put your boots on today — it’s snowing,” to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The value or meaning of the message being transmitted has no bearing on the Shannon model, which is the same for all messages whatever. Pictorially, the Shannon communication conduit looks like this:
Information is further defined by its independence from physical determination:
“I came to see that the computer offers an insuperable obstacle to Darwinian materialism. In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.Referring to the Shannon diagram above, we can interpret the various elements of the model in terms of biological utility, as follows:“The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’ Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” — George Gilder, “Evolution and Me,” National Review, July 17, 2006, p. 29f.
Note the head, “noise.” Biologically speaking, with respect to the fully-integrated, five-leveled biological organism, “noise” in the channel might be introduced by certain biological “enigmas,” which broadly satisfy the requirements of Williams’ model and, thus, are living organisms. Shannon Information Theory describes such “enigmas” as follows:
Bacteria — typified by autonomous successful communication; bacteria are single-cell organisms. Because they are autonomous entities, communications follow the normal flow in Shannon theory — source, message, encoder/transmitter, channel, decoder/receiver. The bacteria’s messages are not “broadcast” to other nearby bacteria but are autonomous to the single-cell organism.Bacterial Spores — typified by autonomous successful communication. Bacterial spores, such as anthrax, are like other bacteria except they can settle into a dormant state. Dormant bacterial spores begin regular successful communication under the Shannon model once an “interrupt” has occurred, for instance the presence of food. Anthrax, for instance, may lay dormant for years until breathed into a victim’s lungs, whereupon it actively begins its successful albeit destructive (to its host) communication, which often leads to the death of its host; i.e., the bacterium’s “food source.”
Mycoplasmas — typified as an autonomous bacterial model parasite successfully communicating. Mycoplasmas are akin to bacteria except they lack an outer membrane and so often attach to other cells, whereby they may cause such events as, for instance, the disease pneumonia. In the Shannon model, mycoplasmas are considered “autonomous” in that the communications are often restricted to the mycoplasma itself; e.g., self-reproduction. But because they also act like a parasite, they might alter the host’s properties and thus result in malfunctions in the autonomous communication of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.
Mimivirus — typified as an autonomous virus model parasite successfully communicating. Mimiviruses are gigantic viruses. They are viruses because they are parasites to their host, relying on the host for protein engineering. But the mimiviruses (unlike regular viruses) apparently do not need to be a parasite, and thus they are “autonomous” with regard to the Shannon model. But like the mycoplasmas, the presence of mimiviruses can alter properties of the host and thereby result in malfunctions in the autonomous communications of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.
Viroids — typified as non-autonomous virus-like noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viroids have no protein coat. They are single strands of RNA that lack the protein coat of regular viruses. They are noise in the channel under the Shannon model; i.e., messages only that are not communicated autonomously within the viroids themselves. They can also be seen as “broadcast” messages, because viroids may cause their own message (RNA) to be introduced into the host.
Viruses — typified as non-autonomous virus noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viruses feed genetic data to the host. They are strands of DNA or RNA that have a protein coat. Viruses are parasites to the host, relying on the host for communication; e.g., reproduction. In the Shannon model, viruses are either noise or broadcasts that are not autonomous in the virus and appear as noise messages to the host. It is possible that, unlike the polio virus which is destructive, there may be some viruses (and viroids) whose messages cause a beneficial adaptation in the host.
Prions — typified as non-autonomous protein noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (protein crystallization). Prions are protein molecules that have neither DNA nor RNA. Currently, prions are the suspected cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Mad Cow Disease. In the Shannon model, prions would be incoherent in the channel because they have no discernable message; that is, neither DNA nor RNA. Thus the prion would lead to channel or decoding malfunctions.
So far there is no known origin for information (successful communication) in space/time. This should be visualized as activity represented by the arrows on the above illustration. Possible origins include a universal vacuum field, harmonics, geometry.
Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications applied to molecular biology shows genuine promise of having some significant implications for the theory of natural selection in explaining the rise of information (successful communication), autonomy, and semiosis (language, encoding/decoding). — S. Venable, J. Drew, “Shannon Information and Complex Systems Theory,” Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy, Lulu Press, 2006, p. 207f.
It seems worthwhile to note here that, under Shannon’s model, the thermodynamic “tab” is paid when the “molecular machine” goes from the before state to the after state. At that moment, it dissipates heat into the surroundings. Level (v) meta-information successfully communicated to the organism provides it with strategies to counter and compensate for local thermodynamic effects. Ultimately, when the organism reaches a state in which it is no longer successfully communicating, the entropy tab must be paid by ordinary means. And so eventually, the living organism dies.
Putting Williams’ IC/AP Model into Context
So far, the autopoietic model — though it provides an excellent description of the information flows necessary to establish and maintain an organism in a “living state” — seems to be a bit of an abstraction. Indeed, in order to be fully understood, the model needs to be placed into the context in which it occurs — that is, in Nature.Each living entity as described by the model is a part and participant in a far greater “whole.” Niels Bohr put it this way: “A scientific analysis of parts cannot disclose the actual character of a living organism because that organism exists only in relation to the whole of biological life.” Including the species-specific meta-information unique to any particular species, which also controls and dictates how the entire biological system works as a “whole”; i.e., at the global level. And arguably, not only in relation to the entirety of biological life, but to the physical forces of nature, to inorganic entities, and to other biological beings, including the “enigmas” described above, which appear to be a sort of “quasi-life.” For even though they may be autonomous communicators, some of these “quasi-life” examples suggest an organic state that is somehow not “sufficiently informed” to stand on its own; i.e., they exemplify a state that needs to latch onto a fully-functioning biological entity in order to complete their own “program” for life — the very definition of a parasite.
The single most telling point that Williams’ model makes is that information is vital to the living state; that it flows “downward” from the “top” of his model — Level (v), meta-information — and not from the “bottom” of the model flowing “upwards” by the incremental means characterizing Levels (i) and (ii) — not to mention orthodox Darwinist expectation. On this model, Levels (i) and (ii) “do not know how to fit themselves” into the “biological picture.” For that, they need the information available at Levels (iii) to (v).
Many questions relevant to our exploration of the fundaments of biology have not been touched on in this article — e.g., what is the meaning of “emergence?” What is the manner in which “complexification” takes place in nature? What do we mean by “open” and “closed” systems? What do we mean by “self-ordered” or “self-organizing” systems in nature? (And what does the prefix “self” mean with respect to such questions?)
But since we’re out of time, we won’t be dealing with such problems here and now, though I hope we may return to them later. Instead, I’ll leave you, dear reader, with yet another depiction of Figure 1, this time elaborated to show the total context in which the irreducibly complex, autopoietic model is embedded:
Note the model now sits, not only with respect to its natural environment, but also with respect to the quantum domain of pure potentiality, and also with respect to a (proposed) extra-mundane source of biological information.
I think for the biological sciences to actually progress, a model such as Williams’ IC/AP model is worthy of serious consideration. Remember, Darwin’s theory is wholly classical, meaning dimensionally limited to 3-space, to local, mechanical, largely force-field-driven material causation. Relativity and quantum theory have both moved well beyond those precincts. It’s time for the Darwinian theory of evolution to “catch up” with the current state of scientific knowledge — and especially with the implications of information science.
©2009 Jean F. Drew
Dear Sister in Christ: it is so seldom that I find myself in disagreement with you that I feel that I must avail myself of this opportunity! ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, that letter has meaning -- to the one who wrote it. By the same token, God's Word has meaning (it is His Word) -- whether or not we choose to read it!
That letter and the Bible are both "repositories of meaning" -- stored and encoded information that is capable of conveying meaning -- independent of whether or not there is a receiver.
Or -- did I miss a definition of "meaning" that indicates otherwise?
Certainly the message has meaning to the sender. And to the receiver it will also have meaning. Whether the two are the same, who knows.
The message, intrinsic to itself is just a message. The conveyance, a conveyance.
If I pick up a message sent by someone to you and read it, it will have meaning to me. Even then, it may not be the same meaning as it would have to you or the sender of it.
Creation itself is such a repository. (emphasis mine)
But God is not holding the conveyance accountable in Romans 1:20. He is holding us, the receivers, accountable.
Certainly I agree with you that "every aspect of the Universe is sending intelligible messages." The Universe is an intelligible structure, and humans are intelligent beings. As such, the Universe is the "sender," and humans the "receivers." My earlier point was only that "meaning" is only possible for intelligent, self-reflective, conscious beings capable of making judgments. Most of the "information processing" that goes on in Nature is done by entities that do not appear to have this form of consciousness. But the business of Nature gets done notwithstanding.
Please forgive me for belaboring the point, but that is why the Shannon model is so critically important IMHO. It does not deny messages have meaning; it simply avers that "successful communication" is independent of meaning; that is, it doesn't focus on the particular meaning of the message, but rather on the mechanism of its successful communication. Or as George Gilder puts it, Shannon's model concerns itself, not with the "content" of the message, but with its "conduit"; or more simply, its concern is with the medium, not with the message per se. The message could be something richly meaningful — say, Shakespeare's Hamlet — or it could be something utterly mundane (i.e., "blow your nose"). The Shannon model handles all messages in the same way because successful communications of every kind have exactly the same structure. Thus, the model has universal applicability.
You wrote that "the main job of science is to decipher the meaning of those messages." Well, it seems that you and I and TXnMA are all agreed about this. Aristotle would have agreed with this. But how do the vast majority of scientists understand their role today? I hazard the opinion that most aren't concerned with the meaning of Nature, but with how Nature can be instrumentalized and harnessed to human goals.
For Aristotle, meaning was the essential thing. He proposed that we could never meaningfully understand a phenomenon of nature if we could not describe it in terms of four causes — material, formal, efficient, and final — with the description given in natural language.
But a couple of things happened early in the history of science of the most momentous importance. Beginning with the pre-Socratics, the foundations of mathematics and geometry were laid. From that point on, the natural sciences gradually began to speak of their discoveries in the language of mathematics, not natural human languages; and eventually to formulate it as a predictive tool. (Evidently Aristotle tried to resist this mathematizing tendency.) And this represented a tremendous advance for the natural sciences; for mathematics seems to have an uncanny ability to model nature. It is "unreasonably effective," as Eugene Wigner put it. None of this would have come as a surprise to Pythagoras, I feel pretty sure.
A second great revolution was Sir Francis Bacon's expulsion of final causes from the scientific method in the late 16th century.
A final cause refers to purposes and goals — to teleology. Now I don't know how to find meaning in a phenomenon if I don't know what it's for. But evidently, scientists do not worry much about such matters nowadays.
You wrote that "the statistics of the message is interesting, but the meaning of those messages is crucial." Probability theory is the sine qua non of the increasing mathematization of the natural sciences. Hillel Furstenberg (Department of Mathematics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) has remarked that the great beauty of statistical mathematics is that "probability theory uses human ignorance systematically to create a useful scientific discipline. This in itself is something of a miracle."
However, the efficacy of probability theory depends on the "Law of Large Numbers," which basically states that when there is a sufficiently large number of chance events, there is a very high probability, practically a guarantee, that certain outcomes will occur. But this circumstance does not obtain in macroevolutionary theory, focusing as it does on unique events, not the law of large numbers. Except to note that Darwinism also vigorously eschews teleology, the ramifications of this situation go beyond the scope of the present writing....
Must close for now by saying I'm a Christian, a lower-case "c" creationist, a student of science with a background in philosophy, culture, and history. I'm no academic or working scientist; but I hear what many, if not most of them are saying nowadays.
My conclusion is that if the natural sciences want to "reduce" Nature to a method which is agnostic with regard to either purpose or meaning in Nature, then that just leaves a whole lot for philosophy/theology to do.
In the end, the two great knowledge domains, though seemingly "separate" according to their methods and "mutually exclusive," are finally necessarily complementary for human beings wanting to understand the Universe and their place in it in a meaningful way.
Thank you so much for writing, GGG!
LOLOL, to put it mildly! I'm completely unaware of any process of invention that did not proceed from already existing materials. The only exception to this rule would be: God's "invention," that is the Creation, which furnished all the necessary "existing materials" for all time.
I find it fascinating that some folks nowadays evidently think it is absolutely necessary to "kill off God" in order to free up human creative potential. In a certain way, this line of thinking goes straight to the problem of gnosticism that spirited irish has raised.
Reduced to the bare bones, gnosticism is the belief that there is a form of knowledge superior to that which is given in ordinary human experience that only the "adepts" or "cognoscenti" know about. All other human mortals are simply deluded about the nature of the world and, thus, of their place in it.
It seems that early forms of gnosticism were recessive, "retreats" from the world, a withdrawal into the secret knowledge and away from the world of common human experience.
In contrast, modern forms of gnosticism tend to be aggressive — they are interested in proselytizing this "higher, truer" knowledge. They also do not care about the world of common human experience, which must be "overcome" in order for the gnostic vision to take hold. And because human beings universally and historically experience relations to gods or God, all such divine entities must be eradicated.
But whether ancient or modern in form, gnosticism boils down to a rationalization of the human usurpation of the role of mediator of Truth. It makes man the measure; it is relentlessly "anthropomorphic"; in the process, what begins as egocentrism results in the self-divinization of man.
Modern gnostic systems include: Marxism, materialism, naturalism, positivism, utilitarianism, etc., etc. Indeed, any word ending with the suffix "ism" may be a candidate for classification as a gnostic system of thought.
Eric Voegelin's general term for gnostic systems is "second realities," "alternative realities." The whole idea here is to make the second reality "mask," obscure, and then finally dispense with, the very real First Reality from which it was born. Which seems awfully strange to me. For the constructor of a second reality is very much a natural member of First Reality. Whether he likes First Reality or not, the practical question is: Why would a rational person want to destroy the very ground on which he himself stands?
Seems to me that a kind of "suicide" of the mind and spirit is going on here. But others can make their own judgments about that....
Anyhoot, just some stray thoughts, FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for your excellent essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!
betty wrote, “Eric Voegelin’s general term for gnostic systems is “second realities,” “alternative realities.” The whole idea here is to make the second reality “mask,” obscure, and then finally dispense with, the very real First Reality from which it was born. Which seems awfully strange to me. For the constructor of a second reality is very much a natural member of First Reality. Whether he likes First Reality or not, the practical question is: Why would a rational person want to destroy the very ground on which he himself stands?”
Spirited: This isn’t the easiest subject to tackle in that the answer deals with suffering, and how differently natured people deal with it. Suffering can either lead to patience, strength, and wisdom or it can lead to bitterness, rebellion, deicide, escapism, and other spiritual deformations.
Gnosticism is essentially two things: Elitism on one hand and on the other, escape from suffering through negation of reality and construction of a surreality. The Nassenes are a good example. They taught that the two sexes were wrong, that man is meant to be a hermaphrodite. Male/female sex was therefore wrong, the family and procreation wrong, morality and norms wrong, and so forth.
It’s the way in which this world is ordered, that is, norms, standards, and consequences that gnostics detest. At an even deeper level of pathology,there are those who resent the way in which their bodies are designed. This sort looks with envy upon another who, in the warped view of the envier, ought not have what the envier doesn’t have. On display here is both pride and rejection of the Creator.
Like Lucifer, gnostics are only subcreators, hence they resort to counterfeit. And it’s precisely because their ‘reality’ is actually counterfeit that they must resort to force, terror, and totalitarianism.
One wonders how many scientific discoveries have been sacrificed as a result of the increasing number of scientists who no longer view the Universe as intelligently designed.
I'm at a loss to come up with a reason that a spirit/Spirit might even need gender.. any gender.. Seems that gender was an afterthought in Genesis too.. Very practical for the flesh, it seems, but a pain in the ass otherwise in many ways..
Well, I don’t know about fallen angels, if they were still angels, or if they took on our form, but they were able to breed. Not sure the bible is specific on how this was accomplished- whtehr they remained angels or not
[[or it can lead to bitterness, rebellion, deicide, escapism, and other spiritual deformations.]]
Pick me, pick me- But really though, it seems that adopting a ‘second reality’ would make the whole situation even worse, because you’d be both insane, and bitter with pain
Quick everyone- Nat-Geo is showing their premier “Morphed” series- Right now, we’re ‘learning’ all about how dinos ev0olved into birds- Up next “When whales had legs”
Seems ‘around 208 million years ago’ undersea volcanos erupted releasing methane gas, and dropping Oxygen levels to 12% - wiping out m ost dinos.
Can’t wait for Nat-Geo’s series on how metainformaiton got it’s start- Bet that’ll be an interesting tale.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
Here’s the story so far:
The ‘eoraptor’ about 3 feet tall, (Precursor to the modern turkey we’re told) Survives the massives methane/oxygen reduction, whilel iving on a planet with no vegetation (and apparently a lot of other dinos like diploticus, at 160 feet long)(Interesting how we’re not told what these giants supposedly evolved from- it’s just taken for granted that they ‘must have’ evovled from earlier species)(Don’t ask quesitons sir- just keep mouth shut and listen to the story)- the two continiinents had just split apart, causing massive flooding, the earth warms up, and vegetation sprout out of nowhere apparently- covering hte earth
Monilithosaurus has... get ready for it... An advanced brain, three forward looking toes, arms, and bones that are hollow- “Much like the modern turkey” who has “Three toes, a ‘sharp beak’, and can run 20 miles and hour” (How we go from the 3 foot tall species to the monilothesaurus is beyond me, Just reporting the facts as stated by NatGoe)
Millions of years later- Monilithosaurus evolved into velociraptor (Who nat geo has covered head to toe in feathers)
woops- now we go back in time again- Velociraptor is now relaterd to a ‘dinosaur that flew’- the microraptor gui-ia(Sp?) which ‘might be the precursor to the modern turkey “If it can fly”.
Next, microraptor “In order to survive ‘being eaten’” Climb into trees and glides fro mtree to tree- “Just liek hte modern turkey” (Apparently, the 1000’s of other small ground dwellers didn’t ‘need to evolve’ wings and escape to hte trees- ONLY the microraptor did evidnetly)
“We know flight evovled in stages- the hsow then moves to a modern possum that glides, and states “They live in trees ‘just like’ microrapters”
but now the quesiton becomes “Why woudl micro launch itself into the air “The answers is si8mple” We’re assured by natgeo “To catch insects” (Carion was no longer available to it evidently,- but was available to every other land dweller obviously- it’s just the microraptor which ‘couldn’t make it’ in the ground anymore) (Hey, ‘need spurs evolution’ hmmm- funny how need instructs the geentic info that the species ‘needed to fly’, and htus one ‘helpful mutaiton after another’ magically occured- but hey- that’s another story)
Cue Archeoptryx- the first ‘true bird’ acording to nat geo
“Here is ‘hard evidence’ of the theory of Charles Darwin- that one species can evovle into another.”
Not ogign any further but you get the idea- Notice any gaps in the story? This is hte crap they are teachign our kids- and leaving out FACTS liek hte ‘feathers’ discovered on dinos aren’t infact feathers, but are modified scales- a much different composition and structure than feathers- Bah- We’ll just keep that info behind closed doors-
Lot’s of peopel are goign to be watchign Nat Geo’s ‘Morphed” series, and probably won’t take time to quesiton the HUGE gaps- but where were these species gettign their higher info from? When did the dinos get the info to evovle avian lungs, avian nasal passages, avain wishbones, avain sturnums to support the large breast flight muscles that dinos lacked? Etc etc etc? Is there any evidence backign Nat Geo’s huge gap-filled claims up? Nope- just conjecture and assumptions.
Ugggh- The look on the paleantologists face when he saw the archeoptryx fossil for first time was somethign else- “Obviously dinos evolved into birds” he stated. (After all folks, don’t forget, some dinos had three forward facing toes, hollow bones, were warm blooded, and had ‘Feathers’ (Which weren’t feathers) and one palentogologist felt some ‘bumps’ on a velociraptor arm bone.- and because ‘all’ these thigns resemble birds, that means incredible vast networks of metainfo helped to self assemble all the needed structures once mutations evolved them in the proper orders over millions of years (
[[Actually I wonder how many scientists have one view in public and another in private.]]
That small still voice that they try to ignore in private that is working on their hearts you mean?
But whatever the cause, science is not as rowdy in open debate among scientists as say, philosophy or politics or religion. There are disagreements to be sure but, in my view, the positions are not as opposing and/or deeply held.
Dearest sister in Christ, lately I've begun to appreciate what is beginning to look like a plain fact to me: Satan's lies are successful because he knows "how to tell the truth skillfully." Human beings seem to be naturally susceptible to appeals like that. For instance, see the Serpent's persuasion of Adam in heavenly Eden....
Actually, I wonder about that too, GGG. Excellent point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
