September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction | Main | Challenge: A Real God Wouldn’t Have Let His Chosen People Suffer Defeats »

November 30, 2015

Comments

I did not say, nor would I, that Stonehenge is designed because it seems designed to us.

Why wouldn't you?

I still don't really get what you actually are or are not saying.

We can and do know things because they appear so?

I'm still at the Huh? stage.

I would not use the word 'distraction'.

It's just that you don't have better resources.

More evasion.

Mike can't comprehend the need for, and rejects, metaphysics and RonH rejects appearances, unwilling to comment on Stonehenge.

Meanwhile, the Christian's conversation coherently employs both, without the embarrassing move of forfeiting mind, or perception, or metaphysics, and never having to make the irrational move of making gods of either.

RonH,

Metaphysics = Better Resources


Try it sometime.

scbrownlhrm,
What are your views on evolution? Do you see it as compatible with Christianity?

Mike,
Earlier I just provided some arguments I've heard used against evolution. Would you be able to send me those articles evidencing macroevolution?

"Earlier I just provided some arguments I've heard used against evolution. Would you be able to send me those articles evidencing macroevolution?"

Better yet...please provide link or url so we can all see. I lurk and scour posts and comments nearly every day at Uncommon Descent and this would be the kind of thing that would make big news if it were legitimate.

"Why wouldn't you?"

Because the fact of its being designed is not because of its seeming so. Instead, it goes the other way.

However, our knowledge of that fact begins (at least) with its seeming designed.

We can and do know things because they appear so?

I'm still at the Huh? stage.

Really? Why is that difficult to grasp?
It's just that you don't have better resources.
Better resources than what? Better resources for what purpose?

For the purpose of undercutting false statements about the concept of design and our knowledge of it, I don't need better resources. These ones did the trick.

Daniel,

"The law of entropy challenges the evolutionary paradigm, for both isolated and open systems. It is the tendency of matter and energy to move towards disorder."

This comment alone means I shouldnbt take you seriously. What you acdtually mean is the Law of Thermodynamics, of which entropy is a part. Luckily Biologos - Christians let's recall, have depth charged this rubbish http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/evolution-and-the-second-law

"How does phylogenetics (a man-made attempt at trying to explain the origin of life from a common ancestor) put this debate to rest?"

Man made? What? It's simply interpreting the evidence available. Do you know what phylogenetics is?

"I did explain myself on transitional forms. I said that such transitional forms we'd expect to see don't exist."

How is that 'explaining'? You are simply demanding that transitional forms be displayed - all of them mind, or else there are gaps. What I actually explained is why those transitional forms arent available.

"I referred to abiogenesis earlier because the Darwinian evolutionary model presumes this philosophy, namely, that a living organism came to be from nonliving material"

Why do you think this? Because you are totally incorrect. Why do you think abiogenesis is philosophy?

"I referred to probability because this also challenges the Darwinian evolutionary model. The probability of a functioning enzyme coming to be in the first place is highly improbable."

Show that this is the case - be aware that the serial trials fallacy and one true sequence fallacy may trip you up. I may have heard this load of dingly danglys before. Its the argument from incredulity dressed up as maths - really bad maths.

"On genetics and ribosomes, one may ask the age-old question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

So if I cant come up with the developmental stages of cellular mechanisms, the evolution is false? Is that the argument?


"scbrownlhrm,
What are your views on evolution? Do you see it as compatible with Christianity?"

Why are you asking him? scbrownlhrm is a stormtrooper for 'schbrownlhrm metaphysics' which is a flavour of metaphysics where you play pigeon chess i.e. make your own rules and declare victory having knocked over all your own pieces.

"Mike,
Earlier I just provided some arguments I've heard used against evolution. Would you be able to send me those articles evidencing macroevolution?"

You didnt provide arguments - those are creationist dingly danglys. I can link you - and BradB - to loads of science papers about observed speciation but I doubt you have ever read a science paper before. Therefore start here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/speciation-and-macroevolution/ <- written by Christaion remember
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

"Mike can't comprehend the need for, and rejects, metaphysics"

Incorrect

What I dismiss is your use of dingly danglys in lieu of metaphysics, and your abuse of what you think is metaphysics to try and 'prove' your point.

What YOU havent demonstrated is why metaphysics is relevant or useful here. You just waffled about 'motions' - which is ironic.

Daniel,

Naturalism, being incoherent and ultimately unintelligible, isn't compatible with Christianity's metaphysical landscape. As for observational reality, including all biological data, all of it is perfectly cozy within Christianity regardless of which presupposition one wants to use to drive conclusions ( [1] same bodily ancestry vs. [2] same designer interlacing x's and y's vs. [1 & 2], Etc.) as all work just fine. As for the Imago Dei, obviously neither bodily ancestry nor the "rate" of the process of Christianity's presuppositional Dirt-To-Man have the necessary ontological reach to comment on such.

WisdomeLover

"There is a really good argument against evolution: the prevalent appearance of design in all sorts of aspects of nature.

How do you detect design in nature?

"I also note that you answered none of my questions.

So I'll repeat them.

Do you think Stonehenge is designed?

Did you see it designed?

Is it possible for you to see it designed? etc etc etc"

i.e. WisdonLover claims Design is prevalent in nature.
That absolutely implies WisdomLover can detect design in nature.
But WisdomLover is not going to say what that means.
He's going to insist that Ron or Mike define design for him.

Great. How can anyone assess whether ID is true on that basis?

Mike,

Unpack purpose for us.

You know, both appearances of and the metaphysical necessities thereof.

Not just appearances.

Not just heavy meta.

But this: Both.


scbrownthing

"Christianity's metaphysical landscape, being incoherent and ultimately unintelligible, isn't compatible with Naturalism."

Is that better? Or worse? Or similar to what you wrote?

Recall that the entire point of basing science on methodological naturalism is to avoid the unnecessary implications of metaphysical terms like "truth" and "reality" - things which cannot be demonstrated by science due to its nature of inquiry.

See - philosophy can be useful.

"Mike,

Unpack purpose for us."

Why do I have to do that?!

Mike,

Scientism is irrational. You're conflating principles.

Also: unpack purpose for us.

"Mike,

Scientism is irrational. You're conflating principles."

Im not claiming scientism?! lol

"Also: unpack purpose for us." Why?! lol

"Why do I have to unpack? Why do I need metaphysics?"

I'm satisfied with that.

Thank you for the gift.

""Why do I have to unpack? Why do I need metaphysics?""

?

Are you deliberately misquoting me? Show the post where I said that.

You know I didnt write that. And it seems like you are replying to my post. So it seems that you are trying to attribute that quote to me.

If that's what's going on - that's dishonest.

Mike,

Okay. What did you mean when you asked why you need to unpack purpose?

I meant unpack it beyond appearances, into the metaphysical necessities of such.

I'm sorry that went over your head.

Go
here.

Each time you click the 'P___________m' button you get a new essay that sounds like one of scbrownlhrm's comments!

Each one, we assume, is unique.

Yet they all sound the same.

RonH,

Unpack purpose for us. Are you sure laptops are designed? Or is it a sort of fictitious concept?

Neither you nor Mike seem eager to go down that road.

Probably because of...... physics.

Yes I'm quite sure laptops are designed.

One prominent feature of a laptop is the hinge.

The laptop hinge has a controlled amount of friction.

The designer, knowing the size and shape of the screen, uses engineering equations and materials handbooks to design the hinge so that the screen will be pretty easy to move and yet stay anywhere you put it.

Design.

RonH,

I'm sorry the terms "unpack" and "metaphysics" and "purpose" went over your head.

BTW, I appreciate the gift.

It's very satisfying.

"One prominent feature of a laptop is the hinge."

So the hinge in every joint of every animal isn't designed?

What marks one hinge as designed, and another as not designed?

BTW. Is it generally true that design is marked by hinges?

Or are there all sorts of other considerations that might mark a thing as designed.

For example, do interlocking gears mark a thing as designed?

For example, do interlocking gears mark a thing as designed?

The nymph of an insect called 'planthopper' has interlocking gears between its legs.

What do you think would be the evolutionary precursor of this adaptation?

"But WisdomLover is not going to say what that means."

No, I'm absolutely willing, unlike you, to say what "designed" means.

"Designed" means "Made according to a plan with a purpose in mind."

At least you'll know how to answer next time someone asks you.

As a bonus gift there is no one thing that is evidence of design. The presence of gears and hinges are pretty good indicators of design though, I agree with Ron about that. Keys, locks, pulleys, levers all pretty good evidence of design. All of them working together to achieve some complex end...even better.

Yes I know about the planthopper.

This:

Seems designed to me. No doubt you will tell me how it evolved.

Mike,
Thanks for sharing those links. I'll have to take a look.
Pardon my choice of terms ("law of entropy" in lieu of "2nd law of thermodynamics"). Clearly you know more than I do on this topic. It is certainly intriguing though that there are still a number of highly qualified and well-educated people who are still debating the evolutionary model based on facts.

As it pertains to the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, even after reading that response link you sent, it still strikes me as odd that, adding enough energy from the sun, atoms and molecules somehow could form a a cell through a series of reactions, and then multicellular organisms, and so on and so forth, moving towards greater and greater degrees of order. That is something on the naturalistic model that puzzles me.

Hi Daniel, I didn't read anything from Mike's recommendation yet, but dont get off track, the sun, heat, light introduced to system does not produce information. Things react yes...by physical laws but we would like to see proof of organization of information and even further increase of information from a mutation for this leap to say all that the sun has done for the Darwinian model. ID has no such obstacles to overcome. The evolutionist has...the 6S method to deal with obstacles...selective hyper skepticism is a tool of the trade.

RonH,

You cannot tell us how anything "evolved".

Why?

"Evolution" is a fallacious claim.

Why?

Because your definition of evolution reveals uneven handling of [1] evidence and [2] appearances and [3] metaphysical necessities.

A few examples:

The Non-Theist will toss out all the unavoidable conclusions affirmed by the NASA evolutionary simulator format as those demonstrations prove what physics already proved -- that he has no rational basis to comment Yes/No on any biological system being designed or not.

It's interesting that, as discussed earlier, the NASA evolutionary simulator format *proves* that minds *do*, by controlling and defining X and re-defining X based on goals, manipulate both the cascades which follow from X -- themselves leading to Y -- and also then Y itself and all *without* directly touching or nudging those cascades themselves nor Y itself.

The claim that Y is utterly free of Mind in its "evolution" is therefore fallacious. In fact, it's just as fallacious as the Non-Theist claiming that anything (say, a laptop) is designed given the fact that physics disolve *his* metaphysical attempt in said claim.

It is in this way that the Non-Theist's myopic lens fails to see the need for his *own* claims regarding "this" slice of reality to cohere with his *own* claims regarding "that" slice of reality.

That kind of disjointed and inconsistent treatment of [1] evidence and [2] appearances and [3] metaphysical necessities just is a hallmark of sloppy, even timid, thinking.

It's revealing that only the Christians in this thread happily dive into all three, easily affirming a cohesive singularity in and by all three.

Truth-finder referents fail if left isolated from large swaths of "the rest of" reality -- and it is just that sort of failure which underscores the Non-Theist's painfully myopic vision as he mutters, "No, no, never mind all those other slices, just LOOK! Right *here*! Can't you see?"

Such is the noise born of indolence.

RonH,

Note Brad B's use of the term **selective** hyperskepticism.....

Evidence.... appearances. .... metaphysical necessities..... uneven and disjointed treatment across the board.

Yo yo yo, my man Doug Wilson hits the nail on the head of what I was getting at:
"Entropy: matter randomizes over time. Evolution requires the opposite. Appeal to “open systems” doesn’t really help the problem. Open and closed systems are an abstract construct. The fact is that in all observed cases, energy input (whether from inside the system or from outside) causes deterioration, not construction. If you put a bunch of building materials out in a open field, the energy from the sun will not build a house for you. It will, however, damage all the wood."

And again:
"It is not the case that a few pieces of the evo-puzzle are missing. Virtually the whole thing is not there. Given evolution, how many species have actually existed, and how many of them do we actually have in hand? What is the ratio? If the evolutionary tree consists of all the life forms that have ever existed, then all we have are a handful of twigs and bits of bark." ~Doug Wilson

Given the problems and many loopholes one must jump through to establish the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm, why not challenge the validity of the "theory" altogether?

On a Theistic Worldview, could the striking similarities between genes, cells, etc. of organisms be simply due to the fact that we have One Common Designer?

So?

What do you think would be the evolutionary precursor of this adaptation?

My guess would be a friction drive.

A friction drive is like meshing gears without the gear teeth teeth.

My snowblower is propelled this way.

And you know what?

The jumping legs of a lot of insects, including the adult leafhopper, are synchronized by friction drives.


Friction drive is simple and cheap (compared to gears) if you are an engineer.

It's also simple to evolve: bring the jumping legs together (by mutation) so they touch.

Then let natural selection optimize the friction material, the jumping movement, etc.

But friction drives are not great - especially if you're really small.

If the rollers are too squishy, then you waste a lot of energy squishing and unsquishing them.

If they are too hard, they tend to slip on each other unless you press them together very hard.

And that means you need a stout frame.

But suppose they are a bit rough?

Now they waste less energy and slip less - synchronizing more perfectly.

If they are rough enough, they can't slip.

You have a gear.

Ah yes, RonH is still ignoring those pesky things called facts. Just pretend one, tiny slice of reality is the only slice of reality and..... POOOF.... Magic! All the other slices fade away.


One can only hope.

"Unpack purpose for us."

What on earth does this mean? What do you mean by 'unpack' in this context? And more importantly, how is this activity going to help anyway understand anything. I agree semantics can be important but you need to justify why this prima facie pedantic activity is important.

""Evolution" is a fallacious claim.

Why?

Because your definition of evolution reveals uneven handling of [1] evidence and [2] appearances and [3] metaphysical necessities."

Hilarious!

Metaphysically speaking, Non-Theism is incompatible with Design.

The array of truth-finding referents constituting semantics, evidence, appearances, metaphysics, logical lucidity, necessary means, and justified ends all converge as one’s accounting of reality approximates truth.

But to earn that golden prize of convergence one must be prepared to allow reason to do her full and proper work, to the bitter ends of one's ultimate explanatory termini, whatever they may be.

This thread is a good example of just why there is a growing ocean of both Old and New Atheists joining the ranks of the Christians in their treatment of their own paradigmatic conclusions about the nature of reality as everybody knows the obvious – the particular T.O.E. which “…brings into harmony the greatest number of ascertained facts and disposes of the greatest number of difficulties with the least amount of strain….” is the T.O.E. which carries the highest degree of plausibility.

The need to get rid of their paradigm’s “difficulties” has driven that growing ocean of Non-Theists to agree with the Christian and forfeit the obviously irrational attempt of compensation via various flavors of “emergentism. Physics and metaphysics, if no-god, has settled the question and politely, quietly, and decisively disposed of emergentism, of purpose, of design. “Adaptation”, from the mind of man to the cosmos to the rocks in our driveway, it is now conceded, just is, along with the whole show, non-design for when it comes to purpose, when it comes to design, in a universe such as ours there is no room for any such actualization.

The ultimate explanatory terminus of all truth claims is something which every T.O.E. carries and only by beginning there and ending there does one truly avoid either circularity or final unintelligibility, or both. While the Non-Theists “must” cut off all presuppositions “short of” his own ultimate explanatory terminus and therein force all of his metaphysical claims to suffer the pains of circularity (or else he must suffer the pains of incoherence and unintelligibility), the Christian need never pull up short, need never cut off his presuppositions prior to, or "distal to" (whatever that means) one's own ultimate explanatory terminus. Seamlessness, and therefore plausibility, allows the Christian to employ a wide array of X’s as elementary truth-finder referents constituting semantics, evidence, appearances, metaphysics, logical lucidity, necessary means, and justified ends as such obtains in and by the many and varied contours of the Divine Mind, in and by the many and varied contours of Pure Actuality.

All of “that” is why the Non-Theist has to embarrass himself with the following:

“....metaphysics....? Please explain.... why does it matter?”

And with:

"But when is its seeming red ever a cause of its being red?"

It’s unfortunate that the Non-Theist has to be so timid amid his own paradigmatic means, that he has to claim that the Theist is claiming that “the cause of” red being red is the perception of red. As if the Christian is claiming that perception is a cause rather than one truth-referent among other truth-referents. How unfortunate for the Non-Theist. We wonder if he meant to be so fallacious in his analysis of the actual argument? There is so, so much more that the Christian offers other than appearances, and yet the Non-Theist speaks as if the whole of the Christian argument is comprise solely of an appeal to appearances.

It is, that is to say, unfortunate that we have (one the one hand) one Non-Theist zeroing in on appearances and treating the discussion “as if” that is the “only” truth-finder referent which the Christian employs while (on the other hand) we have another Non-Theist pervasively avoiding his own metaphysical (and thus rational) “means”.

Being asked to unpack their reasoning via digging deeper than raw appearances and mere semantics, they are simply unwilling to go there, and therein pretend that “Slice A” of reality is free of all the demands of “Slice B” of reality, and those two slices of reality are free of all the demands of “Slice C” of reality.

Truth-finding referents housed within semantics, evidence, appearances, metaphysics, logical lucidity, necessary means, and justified ends remain willfully isolated from one another in the Non-Theist’s semantic moves to get his claims to “stick”.

Meanwhile, the Christians in the thread happily dive into all of the above (semantics, evidence, appearances, metaphysics, logical lucidity, necessary means, and justified ends), easily affirming a cohesive singularity in and by the whole of reality (said truth-finding referents). Why? Because everybody knows that truth-finder referents fail if left isolated from large swaths of "the rest of" reality – and it is just that sort of failure which underscores the Non-Theist's painfully myopic vision as he mutters, "No, no, never mind all those other slices, just LOOK! Right *here*! Can't you see?"

Despite our best effort to help the Non-Theist along in seamlessly fusing his own epistemology with his own ontology, and, also, despite our best effort to help him seamlessly fuse science and physics with his own metaphysics, the Non-Theists are happy to remain blissfully unaware of the trouble which awaits them (given their metaphysical wherewithal) should they actually embark on the tedious and difficult intellectual assignment of digging deeper than raw appearances and mere semantics.

Even when it comes to the unpacking of evolution the Non-Theist is very, very selective on the evidence he embraces. For example, we have proven (as discussed earlier) that, in fact, the following is the case:

[1] The NASA evolutionary simulator affirms Christianity’s metaphysical landscape vis-à-vis causation amid such vectors as first causes and formal causation and final causation and pure actuality and potency and actualization (and so on….).

[2] Reason cannot (rationally) claim that the many and varied physical cascades constituting the Christian’s presupposed “Dirt-To-Man” (where the bodily/corporeal is concerned, *not* where the Imago Dei is concerned), which for the sake of discussion we call “evolution”, is magically insulated from Mind for Mind (the model proves) can and in fact does control for and define X, (and re-define X if our goal is not met the first time) and, then, all that follows X is also (then) directed by X and all without ever touching anything *but* X.

[3] The NASA evolutionary simulator also affirms Christianity’s claims in that we find the impending realization that as we perfect these models we will be able to *know* that, say, *given* this or that set of touched, nudged, defined, fixed variables [….. X….] upstream, the (un-nudged) cascades which follow will yield this or that (un-nudged) Y [structure] downstream.

[4] The NASA evolutionary simulator model also affirms Christianity’s claims in that it aligns surprisingly well with the “intelligibility of the universe”, which is an equally painful topic for the Non-Theist's insolvent chain of metaphysical IOU's.

But such scientific evidence is ignored by our Non-Theist friends, just as they ignore the fact that they've no rational means to claim that any-thing-any-where (laptops, trees, eyes, automobiles, rivers, whatever) are the product of (actual, metaphysical) purpose (design). As noted in various ways by a growing tide of Non-Theists, “…..when physics disposed of purpose (and it did), it did so for biology as well…..”

That is why the Non-Theist can only achieve the appearance of solvency by “selectively separating” the tiny sliver of reality that is “biology” from the rest of reality and even (then) separating many slices within biology itself from other parts of biology. That is to say, he must be very selective and uneven in his treatment of semantics, scientific evidence, appearances, metaphysics, logical lucidity, necessary means, and justified ends.

That the Non-Theist has to go on such fallacious tangents, every single time, and that he has to settle for his own tangent into what just does end up in eliminative metaphysics amid the annihilation of all that is Mind, every single time, is evidence that his model of reality just isn’t plausible.

Bayes’ Theorem is mixed in with the question of Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism?

It unpacks some of that geography and concludes with this:

.....In other words, the degree to which the vastness of the universe increases the probability of atheism is marginal! It scarcely changes the odds at all. So while the smallness of the universe would greatly increase the probability of theism, the vastness of the universe only negligibly increases the probability of atheism. This niggling difference is easily overcome when one factors in other information than the universe’s size, such as its beginning to exist, its being fine-tuned, and so on. Then the universe’s size can become virtually irrelevant.... I think this can help to explain your intuitions….. Taken in isolation the vastness of the cosmos does count against theism to some degree, but not decisively; indeed, given all the evidence we have, I should say, insignificantly.

As noted earlier, the question at hand starts with semantics giving-way to metaphysics: Can Evolution build Designers? One must here posit contours of (paradigmatic, not fictitious) planning, contours of (categorical, not fictitious) purpose.

The question answers itself. Non-Theism is incompatible with Design.

If the (attempted) answer by the Non-Theist is, “Well, umm, yes, design, the property of purpose, the property of planning, not the fundamentally fictitious kind, but the actual, metaphysical, categorical kind, magically emerges vis-à-vis this or that physical property”, well then his case is hopeless from the start. Because.... physics. Because.... physical sciences. Because.... reason. Because ....logic. And so on down the line of the many and varied truth-finder referents.

Semantics are fine – but Heavy Meta is just more important here. That is why the tangents of the Non-Theist here on this topic (dishonestly, evasively) ignore the point under review, every single time: Metaphysically speaking, Naturalism, or Non-Theism, is incompatible with Design *period*.

It was stated earlier that [ "Odds ratio = (probability of the fossil record given evolution) / (probability of the fossil record given design) ]".

Once again, one must define the word design in said equation. Rationally. Pointing to un-designed things in motion unpacks to the noise of indolence and simply wastes everyone’s time.

If Evolution builds Designers, as the Non-Theists attempt to infer, then they end up asserting that the probability of (paradigmatic, not fictitious) purpose, and of (categorical, not fictitious) planning, and of (non-eliminative, not fictitious) design is equal to, according to all accountants seated at the table, 100%. That is to say, the probability of Mind as the fuel of all vectors is 100%.

But that merely proves God.

Why?

If design is anywhere, to any degree at all, we run up against something that cannot carry us to any end that is less than the whole show (which we call the universe) and which must in fact be more than the particular show in question. Design must precede design – otherwise we are simply conflating paradigmatic (categorical) terms. Unfortunately for the Non-Theist who really, really, really wants his universe to account for ultimately non-eliminative / non-fictitious design, he is just stuck with his own paradigmatic hard stop – his ultimate explanatory terminus – which will, every single time, ruin all of his (irrational) hopes – because physics. If there is Purpose, Design, Mind **inside** of a universe such as ours then there is ipso facto such **outside** of said universe.

The following also proves God:

Design exists inside of our universe. Hinges and all that on all sorts of levels. Etc. Indeed. Appearances can count for a lot, assuming the metaphysical landscape is coherent from the ground up -- literally. That is to say, given the metaphysical landscape of Christianity, we're going to be right sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") and we're going to be wrong sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z."). That aligns with the real world. Artifacts and all that. Easy. Obvious. Predictable. Whereas, given Non-Theism / Naturalism, we will (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") be wrong every single time – for the word “purpose” or the word "design" (and so on) is unintelligible – because – physics.

The Christian alone has the rational means (therefore) to justify intelligibility in claiming this or that X either *is* designed or in claiming this or that X *looks* designed or in claiming this or that X *isn't* designed. (This is the part where the Non-Theist confuses all of those pesky demands for *precision* in differentiating formal causes, final causes, potency, actualization …and so on… as touched on in the earlier link).

Now, obviously, as demonstrated in this thread by a response by one of our Non-Theist friends on that point, some of our Non-Theist friends cannot understand why physics and metaphysics have to be cohesive in one's claims. They truly are unaware of the stranglehold which eliminative metaphysics has on their own Naturalistic means and ends (and on, therefore, the very small slice of Naturalism that is "biology"). Their myopic lens truly fails to comprehend that one little slice of reality (biology) cannot stand isolated from the rest of reality as one employs various truth-referents in seeking an exhaustive picture of reality. Because there’s no such thing as “magic”. Not according to reason, that is.

Laptops are not, in fact cannot be, designed, on Non-Theism. But that fails to cohere with the real world.

The probability of design is either 0% or 100%.

There is no other %.

But this too then carries reason, should she be permitted to do her proper work, to God.

So the Non-Theist must find a way out:

Emergentism tried and failed, and, so, all that is left for the Non-Theist is the growing awareness of the stranglehold which eliminative metaphysics possesses on Naturalism's means and on Naturalism’s ends and therein he is forced by the physical sciences, by reason, and by logic to deny that design exists *period*. That is his last hope for an escape hatch out of proving God, but that move leaves the Non-Theist with no rational means to identify design in *anything* – *anywhere* – *ever* – for one simply cannot identity what does not, in fact cannot, exist. Not rationally.

Unfortunately for the Non-Theist, designed things exist. And, designers exist. And, whether, oh, say, animals are designed or design makes no difference. That is to say, reality as she actually is ends up being on all fronts, is (metaphysically/actually) unfortunate for the Non-Theist’s (irrational) hopes.

Whereas, within the metaphysical landscape of Christianity, we find that we can (rationally) observe that [1] Man in fact designs, and also that [2] simply, design exists period inside of a material universe which itself is unable to house design – because physics – and therein all such categorical ends find the transcendent necessarily pressing in upon all such landscapes.

So we come to just why it is the case that the Non-Theist consistently (and dishonestly) misses the point:

Purpose, Planning, Design (actual, not eliminative/fictitious) *inside* of the sort of universe we have ipso facto necessitates design *outside* of the sort of universe we have.

Well then what?

Well then Man *can* (rationally) say that this X or that X may in fact be designed via the criteria of his own (Man's own) design preferences and tendencies because those preferences themselves are rationally amalgamated with the proper and necessary means for such ends. But what that does *not* grant is that Man's design preferences and tendencies are the “sole arbiter” akin to the Meter Bar in Paris (etc.) by which to make *ALL* such claims. And in fact that is just the way the world happens to present itself to us.

Man being designed and Man designing (Christian paradigm), that is to say, design *period*, does, also, leave the Non-Theist necessarily mute, for, the Christian paradigm does not, in fact cannot, rationally assign Man's design patterns and tendencies the role of “sole arbiter” or of the famous meter bar in Paris by which and against which *all* claims of design either live or die.

Why?

Because physics. Because (actual, not eliminative/fictitious) purpose / design / planning *inside* of the sort of universe we have ipso facto necessitates design *outside* of the sort of universe we have.

Metaphysically speaking, Naturalism / Non-Theism is incompatible with Design *period* and therein every time anyone claims that anything is designed one is affirming God. The laptop alone proves God assuming one possesses the sort of poised and brutal intellectual honesty willing to do the tedious work of metaphysical unpacking demonstrated by both the Christian and the growing ocean of both Old and New Atheists.

The Christian need never pull up short, need never cut off his presuppositions prior to, or "distal to" (whatever that means) one's own ultimate explanatory terminus. For the Christian paradigm such obtains in and by the many and varied contours of the Divine Mind, in and by the many and varied contours of Pure Actuality.

Daniel

Who is Doug Wilson and why should I take any notice of anything he has to say? Because a read of his quotes show that he clearly hasnt read any science books ever.

"Given the problems and many loopholes one must jump through to establish the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm"

Which problems and lopoholes? The canards you erected and I shot down? The ones your Christian mates at Biologos - people who actually have some science education - disagree with?

"dont get off track, the sun, heat, light introduced to system does not produce information. Things react yes...by physical laws but we would like to see proof of organization of information and even further increase of information from a mutation for this leap to say all that the sun has done for the Darwinian model"

Wow creationist canards coming thick and fast now - I see 'information' has reared its head.

Information isnt some magic entity. I dont know why calling for 'proof of organization' is useful so it would be good if you can explain why this is important/relevant.

As for the "mutations cant create information" that's demonstrably false' - the production of new information (in the form of new states occupied by DNA molecules) has been observed taking place in the real world and documented in the scientific literature. If you can't be bothered reading any of this voluminous array of other people's hard work that's your look out. But the evidence that refutes the assertion that "mutations cant create information" is readily available.

This is nothing more than dogma fed doctrinally motivated complaints about science you barely have an intellectual grip on.

Mike,
I may not be a PhD in any of the sciences, but note that there are folks, as I mentioned earlier, who are highly educated in the sciences and who do challenge the evolutionary model.
Gravity, which you referred to earlier, is not disputed. The evolutionary model is.
Further, I don't think that a person has to know everything there is to know about evolution to question its validity (i.e. PhD in biology/physics/etc.). I understand that it can be hard when challenges are brought up against a model you hold on to, but it's good to keep an open mind.

"Further, I don't think that a person has to know everything there is to know about evolution to question its validity (i.e. PhD in biology/physics/etc.). I understand that it can be hard when challenges are brought up against a model you hold on to, but it's good to keep an open mind."

This is correct in essence and is a very good thing - but evolution has been shown not to be wrong thus far.

The problem is that the 'objections' you are raising aren't any such thing - they are intellectually vacuous assaults motivated by a prior commitment to the existence of some God and then insisting that reality bends to this preconception. Note that - as I wrote above - science is silent on the existence or not of the supernatural because the supernatural lies outside of its competence.

"Gravity, which you referred to earlier, is not disputed. The evolutionary model is."

You are confusing the observed phenomenon of gravity with the theory of what draws the two masses together. We understand the mechanisms behind evolution - not so with gravity. If you could pray or discover a missing bit of the Bible and find out what the mechanisms behind gravity are you would help an awful lot of people out.

"note that there are folks, as I mentioned earlier, who are highly educated in the sciences and who do challenge the evolutionary model"

Who? Doug Wilson? Who is he? The thing is - there is so much evidence for evolution from multiple disciplines providing reinforcing lines of evidence that you really do need to have a massive level of expertise to bring evidnce against evolution. But thats EXACTLY what we should be trying to do because thats the way we can advance our understanding.

But suppose they are a bit rough?

Now they waste less energy and slip less - synchronizing more perfectly.

If they are rough enough, they can't slip.

You have a gear.

So, to take an example, it I have a friction drive, say a locomotive wheel, and I make it a bit rough, I've improved the wheel?

Is that the way a locomotive wheel really works?

I know that sometimes, they will throw sand on the tracks if something is making the wheels slip, but they know that they're significantly shortening the life of the wheel if they do that.

Rough patches on friction drives would typically be selected against, I would think.

Perhaps you will argue here that that's why it's only young planthoppers that have the gears. Initially, they were just rough patches that sloughed off in the mature animal.

So, to take an example, it I have a friction drive, say a locomotive wheel, and I make it a bit rough, I've improved the wheel?

Depends. You have enabled it to deliver more tractive force.

But there are trade-offs and they determine if you have an improvement overall.

The trade-offs depend on the application.

The smooth steel wheel and rail deliver enough tractive force for the locomotive to accelerate moderately and cruise while pulling an economically viable load over reasonably level ground with awesome efficiency and acceptable wheel & rail life.

Trains carry sand for this purpose.
So you could say that have both smooth and roughed wheels.

Then there's the Mount Washington Cog Railway.

Rough patches on friction drives would typically be selected against, I would think.

Let's say they do wear out faster.

Do they last long enough for the bug to reproduce?

Remember to address the argument rather than the credentials or qualifications of the person who is presenting the argument.

Entropy is a valid argument against the evolutionary model and gives reason to be skeptical of its claims.

"Entropy is a valid argument against the evolutionary model and gives reason to be skeptical of its claims"

No it isnt. Its a canard which I can shoot down here or you can see shot down elsewhere.

"Remember to address the argument rather than the credentials or qualifications of the person who is presenting the argument"

Actually their credentials/qualifications are absolutely relevant if you are claiming their opinions on evolution should be taken seriously.

I still dont know who Doug Wilson is if thats who you are referring to. But his quotes were just full of bad opinions about science.

Daniel,

You said...

The law of entropy challenges the evolutionary paradigm, for both isolated and open systems. It is the tendency of matter and energy to move towards disorder.

Now here is Rod Nave a Christian I think you will approve of. He is the president of the Atlanta chapter of Reasons to believe and has a famous web site called Hyperphysics.

Rod Nave gives this statement of the 2nd law.

Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.

What does 'a system free from external influences' mean?

It means isolated.

Here is a link to Hyperphysics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

And the Atlanta RTB website is here

http://atlantaapologist.org/rtb/index.php

And, finally, the page one which Nave gives the 2nd law statement I quoted.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Daniel,

On entropy and so on, you'll discover that just as the NASA evolutionary simulator format affirms and converges with Christianity's metaphysical landscape within the confines of temporal becoming in the process of "Dirt-To-Man", so too is it the case that "physical eschatology and theological eschatology" seamlessly converge. There's lots of good reading on those two topics if you're so inclined.

The comments to this entry are closed.