A Dialog with a Stumbleupon Friend

Hi David,



I hope you are doing well. I have managed to scrounge some time to finally respond to your last message, and again, please forgive typos, lack of clarity etc. The formatting will be probably be lost in Stumbleupon, but I used a contrasting font and highlighting to visually contrast my counterpoints to your initial statements.



okay time to procrastinate (which stumble is perfect for. i am sure you will agree)

lets step back a little. While metaphysics can come into this discussion they could potentionally come into any debate as it involves all that is around us.

when the debate is on evolution vs intelligent design the direction i approach the issue from is a biological one. the methods for evolution require no concious thought in their mechanism. it is purely random then selection ofr those that are sucessfull. this sounds extrodinary to some but it can essentially be shown and proven.



I would have to question the “shown” and proven statement. I have yet to read of an observed increase in complexity arising from random mutations and natural selection. I have seen catfish that have lost their ability to see due to being in an environment with no light (reservoirs of water in large cave systems), but that is a loss of information resulting form natural selection. Population variations have been observed due to changing environmental variables, but no rise in complexity has occurred. The fossil record can be regarded as an ambiguous record to which one approaches with a priori assumptions.

with the origins of life no one was there to see it happen so we can only provide theories how it happened. it is a historical event and there can be only one true answer but i am doubtfull that we will ever know the full story.



True to a point…..as per your statement that “it is a historical event and there can be only one true answer.” Historical events cannot be construed as, or considered, a scientific theory due to the non-repeatable nature of the event.

if you want to bring metaphysics and the nature of this whole universe into the discussion then you can talk about the hardware this program of evolution is running on. is anything really random or is it all one play put into motion by some higher being. as carnivorous evolved monkeys i dont think that we will find that answer any time soon. even when we have computers supplementing our intelligence something within the system cannot explain the system.



to talk briefly about the second law of thermo dynamics i guess thats where there hardcore physics comes into it. is the universe slowly winding down? i guess some people say it is but it bears no importance in the evolution debate. the energy input of the sun into our system means our planet can go towards organisation just like if i put in some energy i could clean up my chaotic room (though that wont happen anytime soon :D)



You cannot write off the problem of the 2nd law quite so easily. Mere application of energy into a system does not decrease entropy. The old example of a tornado passing through a junkyard producing a Boeing 747 is quite applicable. Your room goes from a state of disorder to a state of order because you put energy into the system, but the energy is directed by your intelligence. You can put energy into the closed system of your room by wildly running around swinging your arms about, but I do not think that you bed will be made and the floor vacuumed by such application of energy. The 2nd law applies universally. It is a foundational law of science that applies equally to physics, chemistry, and biology. If you can give me an observed example of the 2nd law being contradicted, I will be glad to speak to it and perhaps reevaluate my understanding of the issue.


i would disagree on your statement of ID/evolution and its implications on religion. when we have religious texts that were "handed down from god" that are essentially shown to be flawed then the religion and its validity is discredited.



we have shown through evolution that we rose up from the primordial ooze with all of the other animals as equals. we are not gods chosen creatures for a start even if there is someone up there. some could say that we are chosen as evolution of our species was directed but when you look at our family tree we killed and out competed a lot of other highly evolved apes. our intelligence did not rise out from the beasts with some divine grace.



Speaking to the two preceding paragraphs: Again, I disagree with you concerning the larger ‘religious’ implications of the origin models, and I agree with your statement that, without regard to the veracity of evolutionary thought, we are equals with animal. You did not go into the implications of such a statement, but I will address such implication further on.



Without reference to religious texts, flawed or not, there is one logical philosophical outcome to an evolutionary world view, and that is one of nihilism. I guess when referring to the various religious modalities that may be compatible with on view of origins or another, I should perhaps be referring the larger philosophical and ethical considerations. When speaking of a worldview that builds its foundation on materialism, we often romanticize our place in the universe, we wax poetic, we speak of our place as the pinnacle of creation and we fantasize about the future glories of humankind, but when we cut to the chase, such sentiments merely protect us from the fact that, as you have said, we are of no more value than any other animal, than even the dust of the ground. In the final analysis, we are products of a cold, impersonal universe and the achievements, both individual and collective, will return to the dust of the ground from which they came. There is no foundation for morality. If there is no God, everything is permissible. I could speak volumes to this, but for now, I will let it rest.



Also, the veracity of the statement “we have shown through evolution that we rose up from the primordial ooze” is the foundation question of this dialog, and I have yet to see one coherent theory or scenario that validates abiogeneis. In fact, abiogenesis is prohibited by observation and known laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Until abiogenesis can be coherently shown to have occurred, all else is presupposition, speculation, and specious.


ID can be neutral to religion one could say. what if evolution across the whole kingdom was directed by some unseen force. well it is. the pure selection method of survival.



That natural selection can generate information is an idea based on faith and not observed to occur.

as for a type of intelligence directing evolution it is simply not required.



Again, an idea based of faith coming from an a priori acceptance of materialism. Give me an observed example of natural selection producing an increase in information


my belief that we are essentially the product of random generation and selection does not stop me from believing that there is something greater at play here however.



Perhaps a defense mechanism evolved by natural selection to protect one from the harsher notion of an impersonal universe, a nature red in tooth and claw.

when viewing the time scale of things lets say the universe was once pure plasma for however many unconceivable years. this condenses to atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form planets (excuse the simplification) this all would take how ever many unconceivable years again but once you have atoms, molecules will form faster, and the planets and suns faster again. with the generation of planets the generation of life will still take a long time. so we have the creation of earth 4.5 billion years old. im not sure what time they think life was created but due to complexity of dna etc it took a very long period of time to develop dna and the associated mechanisms. ribosomes, the machines used to translate RNA to amino acid chains are so vital they have changed very little through almost every life form. once the background required dna frames are in place some symbiotic relationships between some bacteria would create eukaryotes quicker than the time to develop prokaryotic cells. the transition from eukaryotics to multicellular would be faster again.



I find your choice of words this statement interesting, perhaps a subconscious acknowledgment of design ;) : “im not sure what time they think life was created.” That aside, the odds against the aforementioned biological scenario are so inconceivably vast as to necessitate a tremendous leap of faith, one far greater than acknowledging that perhaps there was some intelligence in the formation of life. Are you familiar with information theory? Atheist Richard Dawkins', whom I have read, in his book The Blind Watchmakers states:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

Consider the following syllogism:

1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms come from a mind - there are no known exceptions

2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

3. Therefore DNA came from a mind.

you should see the trend i am trying to portray here. once there are certain mechanisms in place the development of the next stage is a lot faster. this continues through our evolutionary history till we get to man. with the development of communication between humans information can be sped up rapidly. our physical form hasnt changed much since our ancient ancestors. all of the evolution occurs within the brain. if you look at the development of cultures scientific discoveries greatly speed up the rate at which the new discoveries are found with the only limiting factor being greed etc as shown by major religions in the dark ages. in the last hundred years the rate at which things sped up was absoutely incredible and things are only getting faster now. we will one day perhaps reach a point where we will be able to see our developments before our very eyes and the planet earth will spew out information to organise our solar system.



What I see is speculation. Speculation this is fascinating the mull over, but speculation non-the-less. Also, the rate of increase in scientific advance is in no way whatsoever an example of biological evolution. This is not, in any way, shape or form, an example of biological evolution occurring in our brain. Interesting, also that you refer to information organizing our solar system. Not quite sure about the meaning of ‘organizing our solar system’, but again, perhaps the stated need for information in organizing that which is disorganized is a subconscious validation of design.

just like a virus infects our bodies the formation of information on planet earth will lead to the spreading of information across this universe.

to those who say atheism leaves thm wondering "well whats the point" i can see nothing more divine than being a part of this great piece of art.



Beautiful, poetic, unabashed romanticism. I would need some of that too if I were an atheist, a materialist. The reality of this issue, of the materialistic worldview, is that you will die, I will die, mountains will wash to the sea, the universe will wind down and all the accomplishments, the art, the culture, the history of mankind will not even be but the smallest of footnotes. There will be no lasting eulogy for the self-aggrandizing, irrational, hairless ape known as homo-sapiens.

feel free to ask for any conformation on any of my ideas.
take the discussion where you want to.
i for one am enjoying it so far.

David
jeez that was a long break i just had. back to it.



I, too, am thoroughly enjoying this dialog. I sense and hope that there is a mutual respect between us regarding our divergent perspectives, a respect that I often find wanting in dialogs on this subject. You challenge me to research and think, and I thank you for that. Look forward to hearing from you soon. I will listen further to the TerenceMcKenna mp3 and respond soon, I hope. I am currently working two jobs, and with family responsibilities, time is a commodity that that is precious.



Look forward to hearing from you.



Best regards,



Ron

My response to a query on evo/ID

First, thank you for taking the time to read my 'blog' and contacting me. I believe that ideas have consequences, and the more profound the idea, the more profound the consequences, and what idea, what concept, is more profound than that of the origin of life? Before I continue, I would like to establish that neither evolution/Darwinism or creation/ID are scientific. Rather, I see them as being metaphysical in nature. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, useful in predicting phenomena, and supported by observation of phenomena. If creation occurred, it occurred in the past and is not observed to be occurring now. If evolution occurred (or occurs), it occurred in the past and proceeds too slowly to be observed. The noted philosopher of science, Karl Popper, states that evolution is metaphysical rather than scientific. I think that both models of origins may be best seen as frameworks on which to 'hang' the evidence and the framework that most closely fits the evidence is the more viable.

There seems to be an a priori acceptance of materialism in much of the academic community, and that being so, without regard to the evidence at hand, to it's veracity, there can never be an acceptance of anything other than evolution. To paraphrase, it is not that evolutionary theory is necessarily correct, it is that the alternative is in direct conflict with materialistic dogma.

Because of time constrains, I cannot go into detail concerning abiogenesis, or the appearance of life from non-life. I just would like to comment that research into this issue shows that known laws of physics, chemistry, etc. render the chance formation of life from non-life to be statistically impossible. Even Dr. Crick, discoverer of DNA, because of the insurmountable problems of abiogeneis, believes in panspermia, or that life on earth is the result of the earth being 'seeded' by some outside entity (not God, for he is an atheist if memory serves).

Beyond the issues regarding the formation of the very simplest of cells (which are, in reality, quite complex), there are other problems with evolution. One, natural selection is a destructive, not creative, process. I challenge anyone to give an example where natural selection has been observed to cause an increase in information, in complexity. Mutations are almost always degenerate, rarely neutral, and almost never positive. Also, where are the transitional fossils? The few that are touted as being such are questionable, hence the theory of punctuated equilibria, a 'theory' that is non-falsifiable because it predicts few, if any, transitional forms. How is it that life grows more complex in the face of entropy? I challenge anyone to give an example where order proceeds from non-order without guiding intelligence. What about irreducibly complex systems? How did sex, the male and female reproductive systems, completely co-dependent for procreation and non-functional unless both systems are 'complete', evolve through random mutations and natural selection?

Many invoke the 'god of the gaps' argument in countering ID, but it is precisely what we do know that validates ID. To say that we may find ways around the problems facing evolution is faith, not science.

Sorry if I tend to hold forth. It is probably obvious that I am passionate about this subject. I must also say that my thoughts on origins are not rooted in, or presupposed by, any religious belief system. ID is actually quite neutral to religion. Rather, my worldview is bolstered by what I see of the natural world.

As far a religion 'not working', I cannot agree more. I despise what most consider to be religion. I despise the cliches', the religious talk that I often hear on TV. I also think that most do not know why they believe what they believe and cannot explain or defend why they believe (not that not knowing invalidates their belief system.) That being said, I cannot intellectually dismiss the person of Christ. I cannot intellectually dismiss the resurrection event. I am convinced that something profound happed in time, in history, a couple of millennia ago that impacts and transforms people today. I do not put my brain on a shelf and take blind leaps of faith. Faith, properly understood, in not believing in fairy tales, in unicorns, in Santa Clause. It could be better understood as trust. I trust the Person of Christ because of what I see and understand of his Nature.. There has never been anyone like Christ. One only need to compare the life of Christ with that of Mohammad, of the Buddha, etc, to understand the uniqueness of Christ. Only Christ proclaimed to be God. Only in Christ does one find grace.

Again, sorry to hold forth, but I am passionate about Christ, also.

Again, even though we may politely disagree, thank you for your thoughtful approach to the subject of origins and taking the time to write me.

Best regards,

Ron

"Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt."

A snippet of dialog with an atheist from Stumbleupon

From the page: "Creationism: Gods gift to the ignorant - Weekend Review - Times Online [timesonline.co.uk]

His reply to my critique of the aformentioned page:

"Statistically impossible" my ass, you troglodyte. Take your inadequate grasp of science back to the dark ages you so desperately wish to inhabit. The rest of us will continue living in the mind-boggling beauty of reality."

Me:
Ok, once again, pit your superior grasp of science to my inadequate grasp of science with an online debate....

Why is it that many atheists irrationally romanticize their perception of reality? If honestly examined, the universe cares nothing for you; you are a merely a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Your notions of the "mind-boggling beauty of reality" is a simple defense mechanism, designed by perhaps random mutations and natural selection, to protect you from the harsher notions of an impersonal nature red in tooth and claw, to protect you from your own insignificance. You also can draw no moral imperatives from your world view, and that is perhaps the draw of such a philosophy.

More of your fevered rantings that is perhaps reflective of my last statement:


He:
"In summation: I desperately, pleadingly--almost to the point of praying to your imaginary Mangod--hope that you all immediately die."

Dude, wanting someone to immediately die because they disagree with you makes you sound a bit unbalanced....perhaps you need help....

Dialog with an atheist

Me: I intended to respond to your review earlier, but due to time contraints, I could not. I got around to doing so this evening. Thus it goes.....

Him: I give this page a thumbs-up because it's worth looking at, and I don't believe in putting down-thumb comments on other Stumblers, but I do feel obliged to address critically some of Mondo-Rons' reviews. He contends that he has proven intelligent design. But a mere thought experiment cannot be proven. Proving "intelligent design" would require far more than pointing out a few things as yet unanswered by the theories of evolution, throwing up one's hands and saying, "Oh, must have been God." And of course, the question of who designed something as complex as God would still be out there. The "intelligent design" argument is just the old "first cause" argument of old, recast to sound like a scientific concept rather than a purely religious one.

Me: My statement regarding my 'proving ID' may should be perceived as hyperbole, but I do not think that ID or Darwinism/evolution can be proven; it would in fact be more correct to refer to both models of origins as metaphysical rather than scientific. Those that refer to evolution as a 'fact' either clearly and profoundly lack understanding of the scientific method or perhaps the intent is to intimidate those who question evolutionary dogma.. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, repeatable, useful in predicting phenomena, and supported by observation of phenomena, and I think a strong argument can be made that the evolutionary hypothesis fails to meets the aforementioned criteria. The same holds true for ID/creationism.

Your paraphrase of the old, hoary question of who “designed something as complex as God” signifies a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding. If one's conception of God is as physical, anthropomorphic being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and time. Logically, cause must be greater than effect. That which creates time must be transcendent, beyond time; That which creates energy must be transcendent, beyond energy, That which creates matter must be transcendent, beyond matter. The problem is akin to being asked to draw a four-sided triangle. It is a self-contradictory 'question.'

An equally difficult concept is that of eternal matter. First, one must ask why there is something here rather than nothing. Please take time and mull over this question; there is none greater, none more important. Secondly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to a discreet moment in 'time' that witnessed the beginning of matter, energy, and time. From this point, everything 'winds down.' and moves inexorably towards the heat death of the universe.

Him: It suffers from the same problem: The first cause of the first cause is left unexplained and either evaded or chalked up to "Oh, God is eternal and omnipresent." Thus intelligent design is still traced back to dogma, not logic. It only makes sense if you are first willing to accept the existence of God on faith. I have found this to be true of most religious explanations of life: Though you can find much that is reasonable and plausible, there is always a dogmatic screw hidden somewhere in the machinery that unhinges the whole device when loosened.

Me: I believe I addressed this concern in my preceeding statement. The sword you swing cuts both ways. The denial of a Creator can be traced back to dogma, and evolution only makes 'sense' if accepted by an a priori acceptance of materialism.. If there is a dogmatic screw hidden in the machinery of creationism, there is a large, rusty steel I-beam in the machinery of materialism.

Him: Mondo-Rons has a site called "The Liberal Church" in which he accuses liberals of close-minded orthodoxy in the form of a secular religion.

Me: If it appears that I accused liberals of close-minded orthodoxy, it was not my intent. Perhaps I did not communicate the goals of the journal clearly. I merely intended to illustrate the fact the the liberal church has abandoned the foundation in attempting to accommodate ephemeral cultural and academic trends.

Him: This too is a common error committed by creationist conservatives: Many of them, perhaps because of the strong role dogma plays in their own beliefs, are unable to separate argument from dogma in the beliefs of others, and misread "There is no evidence of God's existence" to mean "I can prove God does not exist."

Me: I am not sure where to begin in speaking to the aforementioned.....First, why creationist
conservatives? Are all creationists conservatives? Also, I do not understand what you mean by “are unable to separate argument from dogma in the beliefs of others.”


Him: Passionate science-supporters and passionate creationists are driven by the same innate desire: We all want to understand the origins of life. The difference is in our levels of patience.

Me: A somewhat condensending statement, don't you think. What makes you think your level of patience is greater than mine? I have embraced this dialog of origins for 20+ years, making the transition from evolutionist to creationist based on logic and evidence. The inference is that creationists are not 'science-supporters' and is an ad hominem attack.

Him: Science-supporters recognize that our natural human hunger for answers should not drive us to give up the quest for rational explanations in exchange for the ready-made "answers" offered by religion.

Me: I never brought religion to the table. I have found it is the materialists that insist on doing so in the course of debate. ID is quite neutral to religion.


Him: Creationists, afraid to go through life with any sense of uncertainty, embrace their dogma for the satisfied feeling of understanding the universe that it gives them.

Me: I will not even begin to dignify the above statement with a response. What make you think I am unable to embrace ambiquity?


Him: I have felt this temptation myself. I've often thought about how nice it would feel to believe the Bible, stop worrying about understanding the universe, and just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Me: Please.......again with the lofty, condensending attitude.....
Again, are all evolutionist so threatened by the Bible? Why do they always interject it into a debate? I do not base my stance on origins on any holy writ......If anything, my theology is based on what I have come to understand about the origins of life.

Him: But I always stop myself by remembering that desperately wanting something to be true does nothing to make it true.

Me: Your point is.....that I desperately want something to be true that is not? Again with the lofty, condensending attitude. Listen, I can also find athiesm to be quite compelling, what with the no moral imperitives, whatever is, is right, etc...... Did not T Huxley state that the primary reason for his athiesm was sexual freedom?

He: I am not dogmatic about the nonexistence of God;

Me: Not the impression that I am left with....

He: I concede that it is possible, merely unsubstantiated.

Me: As is the denial of the existence of God

He: As Socrates said, the only true wisdom lies in knowing that we are ignorant. Admitting that we do not, in fact, have all the answers, and accepting that we will die still not having them all, leaving many for future generations to pursue, is the first and most important step to enlightenment.

Me: Yep

Response to atheist in Huffington Post

My response to an Huffington Post article titled "God Doesn't Care About Us" by Cenk Uygur:
huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/god-doesnt-care-about-us_b_7840.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Well, let me briefly chime in. If there is no God, everything is permissible; there are no moral imperatives. I advance the proposition that most atheists write their ethical checks against a Judeo-Christian account. How can you coherently call anything 'good' or 'evil', 'right' or 'wrong'?
Validate your statement that "we were built to care about each other (mainly because it helps us to survive)." Why, in the final analysis, if we are the product of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, the product of random mutation and natural selection, should I care about you, the homeless, the oppressed, the survival of humanity? To engage in a dialog about the necessity compassion in an impersonal, materialistic universe is to irrationally romanticize ones perception of reality. Cutting to the chase, without regard to its veracity, atheism is nihilism. To think otherwise is intellectual weakness. (I acknowledge the last statement is a bit strong; my rhetoric was a bit strident at best, and I apologize if I offend. I have friends, family, and work associates who are non-theists and I have nothing but respect for them, both in their intellectual and ethical capacity.)

Tolerance

"Tolerance does not necessarily infer approval of that which is tolerated; lack of approval does not necessarily equate with hate, or intolerance, for those who hold a view or exhibit behaviors, be it religious, political or sexual, that one tolerates, but not approve or condone..."~~ Mondo-Ron

Democracy and Liberty

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.