Darwin Dissenter

Thomas Nagel, atheist and philosopher professor at New York University, finds signficant weaknesses in neo-Darwinian evolution and chemical evolution.  He published his view in a new Oxford University Press book Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.  Evolution News and Views provides a number of intriguing quotes from the book.

There are signficant philosophical and scientific problems with evolution.  Dissent with the reigning scientific paradigm of origins isn't only religiously motivated.

Comments

[RonH]

Have heard of apologetic problems. Not philosophical problems or scientific ones.

RonH

[Brad B]

Well, RonH, if there are no philosophical or scientific problems, why in the world are there apologetic problems? Apologetic efforts, it seems to me, are primarily carried out with logical proofs[philosophy] and or physical proofs[science].

[RonH]

Hi Brand B,

Pseudoscience, techniques borrowed from philosophy. And barefaced theology.

Some examples...

Here's an apologetic: 'A big bang requires a big banger.' That is neither scientific nor philosophical. It's apologetical. As far as I know it's Greg Koukl's contribution to apologetics and he offers it as a way to sidestep discussing evolution - a tactic.

Here's an apologetic: 'Information comes only from minds. DNA contains information. Therefore, DNA came from a mind.' Not science. Philosophy? No, equivocation.

Last but not least...

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]

That pretty well tells you what WLC is up to: apologetics, not philosophy.

RonH

[RonH]

Sorry Brad (about misspelling your name). It was unintentional.

[Brad B]

Hi RonH, no problem with the error, I didn't even think for a second that it was anything but unintentional. ;~). So, I'm using apologetic in what I think it the classical way, I'm not sure we are on the same page with that though. I want to maintain that an apologia/apologetic is just a defense of a position, or of a theory[or of any reasoning that can be/needs to be supported if inspected]

I get the sense that your use is quite different from your

"Here's an apologetic: 'Information comes only from minds. DNA contains information. Therefore, DNA came from a mind"

I see no defense here, just claims. The apolgetic would be reasons/justifications/a defense against the contrary.

If Darwinism has no philosophical problems nor science problems, why does it have apologetic problems. The science of Darwinism and the philosophical foundations ought to be able to mount a defense--its apologetic. Shouldn't it?

[RonH]

Brad,

Yes the Greek word means 'defense'. And Christian apologetics is a defense.

However, it's not philosophy, but a branch of theology - fallacious rhetoric posing as philosophy with an increasing amount of pseudoscience and baffle 'em scientific references mixed in (See Meyer and the DNA 'argument' above.)

(Apologists are far from being alone in wanting to make their stuff sound scientific.)

The equivocation on the word 'information' in the quoted passage is apparent. Do I need to spell it out?

If you say your position is immune to argument and evidence, then you are not practicing philosophy - even if your business card says 'Professor of Philosophy'.

RonH

[scbrownlhrm]

“Apologetic efforts, it seems to me, are primarily carried out with logical proofs [philosophy] and or physical proofs [science].”

It seems there are valleys within the terrain of Materialism’s necessary claims which cannot be traversed whether from within logical proofs (philosophy) or from within physical proofs (science) with regard to the following:

The existence of everything.

We can stop there.

The existence of anything.

We can again stop there.

Volition of Will as we actually mean the term (something other than cascading photons inside of determinism’s fatalism).

Intentionality of Mind as we actually mean the term (something other than cascading photons inside determinism’s fatalism within irrationally conditioned neurons).

Personhood as we actually mean the term (something other than cascading photons inside of psychic phosphorescence).

Love as we actually mean the term (something other than irrationally conditioned reflexes such as vomiting or yawning).

Ought and Ought-Not that rises above arbitrary contextual whim.

To be sure we do not miss it:

The existence of everything.
The existence of anything.

Thus we find, inside of Materialism’s necessary claims, no philosophical, logical, physical, or scientific apologetic for Everything, Anything, Will, Volition, Mind, Intention, Personhood, Love, Ought, and Ought-Not. And, again: Everything and Anything.

We find within the Immutable and Eternal that is Love's Triune all of the above wholly embraced within that which Logic and Love reach, touch, taste, and thus see there at the End of ad infinitum

[ToNy]

scbrownlhrm - where are you from?

[ToNy]

It looks like a neat book.

But just seems to come down to the statement "materialism cannot account for consciousness".

ok

We don't have a working model for lots of things.

Aside from the hard problem of consciousness, its very difficult to envision classical Darwinian evolution even accounting for the brain itself.

But personally, i'm more than willing to give scientist a few more centuries to work on the problem.

Though it does bother me that i'll probably be dead before enough research could be done--in the vein of genetics, and even complexity theory.

[scbrownlhrm]

A gap in the explanation for Consciousness is an incomplete summary and wholly fails to appreciate the magnitude of the problem Materialism is facing. It is not that the model of Materialism is incomplete for Anything and Everything, which it is, it is more that there is, simply, no launching pad whatsoever inside of Materialism’s necessary claims for any philosophical, logical, physical, or scientific apologetic for the existence of [Anything] whatsoever, and, for the existence of [Everything] whatsoever, and, for Will, Volition, Mind, Intention, Personhood, Love, Ought, and Ought-Not.

The model is a failure for more than a single reason. Such as:

1) A model which has no logical, philosophical, physical, or scientific launching pad to rise above Materialism’s Ceiling of cascading photons and deterministic fatalism is a model void of Mind, Volition, Intentionality, Will, Personhood, Love, and Ought and this is not simply for a little while, but Ultimately.

2) A model which has no logical, philosophical, physical, or scientific starting point for the existence of [Any-thing] is a model of [No-Thing] at all.

3) A model which has no logical, philosophical, physical, or scientific starting point for the existence of [Every-thing] is a model of [No-Thing] at all.

The assertion that [No-Thing] + [Infinity] equals [Any-thing-At-All] is groundless.

We find within the Immutable and Eternal of Love's Triune all of the above components wholly embraced within that which our Logic and Love reach, touch, taste, and thus see there at the End of ad infinitum.

[scbrownlhrm]

The bridge from No-Thing begins with the existence of Any-Thing.

Materialism must tell us that out of everything material came everything material, and, out of that everything material came another everything material, and out of that everything material came another everything material, and out of that everything material came another everything material, and out of that everything material came another everything material, and so on forever ad infinitum, ad infinitum.

The explanation for the existence of X is the pre-existence of X.

As Dr. Craig eludes to, this model thus tells us that outside of God there is no explanation for Any-Thing whatsoever.

When we add to this abyss the deterministic fatalism which is embedded within Materialism's Ceiling we have no hope for Any-Thing, no hope for Every-Thing, no hope for Mind, nor Will, nor Intentionality of Thought, nor Volition, nor Personhood, nor Love, nor Ought.

[Troy]

RonH,

>> Here's an apologetic: 'A big bang requires a big banger.' That is neither scientific nor philosophical. It's apologetical.

Not at all you might say it is over simplified but the point is philosophical

"Suppose you hear a loud bang...and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."
- Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 48.

Kai Nielsen makes the same point he is an atheist philosopher. His point is to refute the idea of saying nothing caused the big bang which is essentially the same point Frank Turek is making.

Troy

[RonH]

Thanks Troy,

Why is this claim made ONLY about the one thing - the big bang? Why is it not made about falling trees: A falling tree requires a tree feller.?

The reason is that the apologist assumes there was no natural cause of the big bang. If you go along with that assumption he owns you.

Hint: There's no evidence the big bang was 'creation out of nothing'. Indeed, it is difficult to think what MIGHT serve as such. Apologists may tell you that one thing or another is that evidence. Some physicists might even. Maybe, some philosopher might. (Kai doesn't.)

But, think about it: What would serve as evidence of a non-time of no-thing?

How could we ever say: Ah yes, THIS has all the familiar hallmarks of a non-time of no-thing.

RonH

[scbrownlhrm]

Yes but that accounts for nothing. Infinite chain?

[scbrownlhrm]

Your claim is X always "is". Everything always is. But it is without material explanation........

[John Willis]

RonH,

For a smart guy like you that spends so much time at a Christian apologetic site, one would think you'd have this 101 stuff down by now.

The apologist does not "assume" the big bang did not have a natural cause. It's a reasoned conclusion given the facts. The Big Bang occurred. We're here. How do you explain these things?

What is the natural cause of the big bang Ron?

And then please explain the natural cause of that natural cause, and you can keep going for infinity.

At some point you'll arrive at the understanding of the question the Christian is asking. Where did all of it come from? All of it - the whole natural world...time space, soup to nuts the whole shooting match. Everything. The sum total of all sets. Get it?

One explanation that avoids the catastrophic infinite regress problem inherent with your view is a non-material, infinite Being as the foundation and explanation for the Big Bang and the natural world.

(Curiously, the best selling book of all time claims the same thing as the explanation for our natural world - a Creator.)

Maybe it's all wrong Ron....maybe God doesn't exist, Jesus never rose from the dead and the explanation for the Big Bang is something else altogether. But why should anyone accept a completely illogical and un-scientific explanation that something came from nothing? I don't get it. Why throw out a reasonable explanation for origins with an explanation that is clearly flawed and emotionally driven?

Please explain yourself.

Thank you,
John

[jre]

Hey John,

The second best selling book of all time claims:

"The socialist system will eventually replace the capitalist system; this is the objective law independent of man's will."

I say we hold up on using best selling books as support for our arguments.

[JimJ]

Most people wont read this though. Instead they'll beleive everything the History Channel says about evolution like their show the other night "How the earth made man". Every one of mans attributes came from rodents to monkeys.

[scbrownlhrm]

The thing that materialism must explain is not No-Thing but an Everlasting Uncaused Cause and one which is, by definition, within the material realm, or, within Nature.

That is step one.

Step two is to shatter the Ceiling of Materialism which is embedded with an inescapable deterministic fatalism that precludes Volition as we mean Volition, Intentionality of Thought as we mean Intentionality of Thought, Will as we mean Will, Mind as we mean Mind, Personhood as we mean Personhood, Love as we mean Love, Ought as we me mean Ought, and which precludes an account of and a satisfaction of Guilt, Justice, and Grace as we mean Guilt, Justice, and Grace.

I really do not see any hope for Materialism, ultimately.

We find within the Immutable and Eternal that is Love's Triune all of the above wholly embraced within that which our Logic and Love reach, touch, taste, and thus see there at the End of ad infinitum.

[Carolyn]

I so look forward to that day when all we know of this world ends and we are face to face with the Creator of all things! I will sit with rapt attention to the very brief Q and A between the Creator and His unbelieving-created as His very presence shines infinite light on their fine-sounding mental gymnastics. He is the Great I AM. Pray for faith while you may.

[scbrownlhrm]

RonH,

Your sentence on no-time and no-thing caught me. I was toying with that and no-space and the immaterial........ the always-is. Didn't know if you meant to imply such but there is overlap in there a bit.....

[RonH]

What is the natural cause of the big bang Ron?

I Don't know, John. I cannot tell from my armchair.

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

You are unable to break out of the box of compartmentalization and take in the totality of every bit of evidence presented against, evolution, big bang, various aspects of the type of information in the dna, the scant support for evolution, the fine tuning and all the other arguments that are presented as a whole at one time. You stand near the tree and see no forest before you. This is a problem. You need to really stand back and survey the vista. When you do, it is breathtaking as well as taking the wind out of the sail of materialism and atheism at the same time.

[RonH]

Louis,

it is not about me

[Andy]

The simple and most honest answer to "what created the big bang" is "we don't know."

Just because something offers you an answer does not mean it is correct. Just because you created some deus ex machina to solve your thought problem does not mean it is correct.

So if you discuss it with a "materialist" they are likely to ask for evidence. A made-up solution to a thought problem is not evidence. It is the *start* of the process of looking for evidence.

Einstein didn't just think about what happens when you turn a light on while traveling at the speed of light and declare it to be right. He produced evidence to support that fact.

So no - materialists do not know what caused the big bang. But neither do you...

[jre]

Going back to the OP's point:

"There are significant...scientific problems with evolution".

That's a broad statement and can be taken a couple ways.

It could be seen as a very general statement that applies to every field of scientific research. There are problems to solve in every field - that's really the entire thrust of science.

If the statement is meant to claim that evolution is more specifically a failed scientific theory, then you have to look at the lack of competing theories/research/etc. within the scientific community. The overwhelming consensus among scientists is in favor of evolution - and there is absolutely no denying that point. Sure, say what you want about the religious and philosophical short comings of evolution (as you could about each and every branch of science), but you can not say there is a scientific problem with the theory. To argue so claims that there is an active and ongoing conspiracy among 95% to 99.8% of scientists in the field. Evolutionary biology is not some obscure area where a handful of scientists are working without the prying eyes of the media or politicians. Quite the contrary. The idea of a massive, completely unprecedented scientific conspiracy that lasts over a century in a very high profile field is incredible.

[scbrownlhrm]

When we follow Logic we discover that there simply is not an Everlasting Uncaused Cause of a Material sort. Ad Infinitum fails us and our Logic confirms this. If we choose to leave our Logic behind for passion, then very well, we will have much passion in the defense of our theory, despite its ejection of Logic.

It has less to do with not knowing, and more to do with knowing what cannot be. Knowing it cannot be X does not tell us what Y is, only that X is so obviously false, so illogical, that we can easily get rid of X.

"My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense." (p. 7)

If the amount of time that a theory is popular is what solidifies Truth, well, there have been an aweful lot of beliefs and theories that were held for a much longer time than a few hundred years. We can probably avoid the use of "a few centuries of being very, very popular" all together and be better off.

"The explanation for the existence of X is the pre-existence of X" is, well, hopeless, ultimately.

I have not seen anyone traverse the infinite chain of causation and to be more to the point I have only seen Logic so massaged, so manipulated in that attempt it leaves one a bit disappointed.

The Immutable and the Uncreated, the Everlasting and Always-Is are found beyond Material's end. Both our Logic and our Love testify of this and allow us to see over that horizon. And where we can see, we can know.

[John Willis]

Hi Andy,

You wrote:

"The simple and most honest answer to "what created the big bang" is "we don't know."

I believe you. Given your stated worldview, I think you are being honest that you think you don't know. However, your actions (specifically your posting here) indicates you may know more then you give yourself credit for.

Here is what I mean...

Is your last post considered science? (your definition of the word)

You would say "no" - right? You are using ideas, which are immaterial things, to persuade others of your point of view. In doing so you give away that you understand there is more to "truth" and reality then just nature and material.

You demonstrate that you understand the conclusions reached by scientific endeavors are not presented by the evidences themselves, but rather drawn by a human beings with minds that think in ideas and concepts.

So, my observation is that when you say "you don't know" what caused the big bang, you are being true to your worldview, however, you give away with your actions that you really don't believe it. Otherwise why use immaterial things like ideas to prove your materialist worldview?

"So no - materialists do not know what caused the big bang. But neither do you..."

Not in the way you may be claiming. If you mean I know the big bang happened in the same way I know I am typing this post right now - well then no, I don't know in that way. But I do know in a deductive way. I know that something cannot come from nothing. So Something must have proceeded what we observe today. The best explanation I have heard for that Something is an immaterial, infinite Being.

What is your best explanation?

Regards,
John

[John Willis]

JRE wrote: "The overwhelming consensus among scientists is in favor of evolution - and there is absolutely no denying that point....The idea of a massive, completely unprecedented scientific conspiracy that lasts over a century in a very high profile field is incredible."

Hi JRE,

I agree with your first point and more to the point, we're talking about macro-evolution, the idea of amoebas eventually transforming into human beings. There is nothing "scientific" about this idea at all, if we use the scientific method as our definition of science.

To your last point, it does not follow. Scientists could be wrong - all of them, and that doesn't amount to a cover up (not the kind of cover-up you're talking about anywayys). While I believe there are social pressures within academia today that dictate the kinds of things that are published and studied as "science", I don't think we live in a gulag. We live in a more or less "free society". Even though the macro-theory of evolution is taught by force of law in our public schools, thinking people are free to disagree with the theory in favor of other models that do a better job of explaining our shared observation that life appears designed.

Regards,
John

[RonH]

John Willis,

Take the people and all the animals out of the universe.

Leave at least one river - a flowing body of water.

Now flow is not a material thing.

So, what grandiose conclusions does that lead to?

RonH

[scbrownlhrm]

Everlasting Uncaused Cause

Evidence:

There is an unassailable amount of evidence as to the origin of Every-Thing material, all of it, the Any-Stuff of Any-Universe. That evidence is none other than the singular whole of all that science has given to us in the voluminous collection of evidence on the behavior of all things material whether wave or particle or flux or vacuum. We have probed the universe to the Nth degree and have amassed now in our virtual library of chemistry, of physics, of cosmology and of biology a staggering and practically unsearchable assemblage of data points. In this entire ravenous throng of raw information, anywhere, there is no data, none, which tells us that material stuff in any universe is testifying of any stuff called Material, anywhere, as being, ever, an Everlasting Uncaused Cause of a Material sort. Stuff just does not behave that way. Ever. None of it. Not wave. Not particle. Not flux. Not vacuum. All data points reveal to us the same sets of various properties ethereally manifested in different arenas and in different dimensions. Any Material Stuff of an Everlasting Uncaused Cause sort has no, none at all, empirical, logical, physical, or philosophical data points which run to its defense or which testify of its existence. None. Instead all data points run, as fast as we can collect them, in the exact opposite direction and this at an infinite speed. It is inescapably obvious that both Logic and Science have given us a startling compilation of data points which collectively amount to an expansive and exhaustive anthology of evidence inviolably insistent on the Immaterial as the unmistakable birth place of the Material.

The Material, despite the heaping tonnage of data we now have, simply cannot and does not, ever, anywhere, self-account. This silence created by the nonappearance of even one isolated material data point, even one solitary voice which cries “I exist!” out there in Any-Material in Any-Universe Any-Where is deafening. But not as deafening as the screams coming from within that heaping tonnage of data, called evidence, all of which, every bit of it, burns our ears with “Material Stuff just does not behave that way. None of it. Anywhere. Ever.” Science, Logic, and Love all testify to us that the following necessarily exists:

Immaterial Everlasting Uncaused Cause.

It is possible to traverse the ad infinitum and see, and thus know, its End. The Hard Stop that is that End is Love Himself. Logic and Love comprise the duality of our sight by which we see Him.

[scbrownlhrm]

RonH,

Regarding your question on Flow:

It is Mind.

Mind is Immaterial.

That is the answer.

Regarding the whole wide world of data points we have on Material's origin, per my post above on the sheer tonnage of it all:

The Immaterial.

That is the answer.

Mind. Person. The Immaterial. Material. This is the Stuff of Reality.

[scbrownlhrm]

Given the irrefutability of the sheer tonnage of data points on the reality of the Immaterial, that tonnage being none other than every bit of data ever collected on wave, on particle, on flux, on vacuum, ever, and given that not one solitary data point anywhere in that entire expansive conglomeration of painfully processed data testifies of the existence of even the simple possibility of a material sort of Everlasting Uncaused Cause, per the post above on Oct. 15th at 3:16 PM, it is inescapable that while there may be flowing water in some universe somewhere, there is zero empirical data, zero logical data, zero philosophical data, and zero physical data to support the existence of any universe, ever, anywhere, which exists external to the Immaterial. Not even one lone data point breaks ranks and attempts to run to the defense of a Material, Everlasting, Uncaused Cause. Material stuff just does not behave that way, anywhere, ever. The inverse of those zero data points, which is the billions of data points ever collected on wave, on particle, on flux, and on vacuum, all of them, called evidence, herein testify of the necessary existence of the Immaterial. Given all this, we may I suppose posit a universe with flowing water, but, it is clear, and irrefutable, and every bit of data ever collected on wave, particle, flux, and vacuum confirms this, we may not, ever, in any universe, posit a river without first positing the Immaterial, and thus the Nuance of Flow, the Idea of Flow precedes the molecular aggregate of hydrogen and oxygen comprising the material side of Flow.

Given this, the grandiose conclusion we must make, and the word “must” here is used in the most empirical, data-driven sense imaginable, is that there comes from within that Uncreated Eternal the stuff of the Uncaused, which is Will’s Volition, and therein we touch Person, and it seems then that in fact the very Ideas, the very Logic, the very Intentionality of Mind which posits Flow there begets what is actually the more Concrete Reality, which is the Everlasting Uncaused, and, then, out of this, from within Personhood, and in particular the Personhood of Love housed within the trilogy of I, and You, and I-You, comes the less concrete reality of material water. However, to avoid the error of Pantheism we will not say less concrete, for God creates actual things, things that are not “Himself” for though the water is birthed out of God, the water is not God.

Logic and Love carry us to the End of ad infinitum. And where we may Be, we may also See, and where we may See, we may also Know. We can Know.