A Materialist Red Herring
by BradfordThe origin of life is a dilemna that has defied attempts at resolution since Darwin. Sure we have a hodgepodge of theories as to how it went down. We also have identified properties of cellular biochemicals thought by OOLers to justify their faith in chemical pathways to cells. Their faith is never so evident as when critiques of their beliefs are branded God in the gaps. The cliche reveals a number of things about those who use it. Lack of originality for one. It is one of the first cliches learned by critics and is subsequently mindlessly tossed about. Ever more so when a telling blow is landed on a theoretical weak spot.
It is also a cliche well suited for those who would presume to know the thoughts of another or simply ignore well known theistic views in the interest of maintaining their own prejudice and the comfort zone that theological ignorance affords them. Most of those who believe in God attribute the origin of all natural laws and natural phenomenon to God. They do not look for gaps thinking that God is detectable in them. That's the straw man that defines the mindset of critics.
But the most interesting aspect of the cliche is how it is used to hide a sleight of the materialist hand. If materialism is to maintain the fiction that it is sustained by scientific data then it must at least attempt to separate empirically derived assertions from assertions not sustained by empirical data. To assume favorable data exists and has not yet been found is to demonstrate faith in an outcome in lieu of an empirically grounded argument. It also places a philosophical bias into an unknown and asks that discernment be averted in the interest of maintaining an unverified expectation. Don't mention the inadaquacy of evidence or the fact that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Bradford,
Let's analyze your first paragraph,
Why even mention Darwin in this context? He did not attempt to explain the origin of life, his theory was about the origin of species. One thing at a time.
In other words, people have advanced some plausible hypotheses about how life may have started. They are certainly not on the level of a scientific theory yet, and I have no problem admitting that.
Well, it is God of the gaps. Creationists have largely conceded the old age of the Earth and the reality of evolution and have drawn the next line in the sand, some at macroevolution, others at the OOL.
There is no need to be original when creationists keep using the same tactics: we can't imagine how it happened, so God did it. Learn some new tricks, guys, if you want fresh criticism.
No, the OOL problem is hard not because of its theoretical complexity, but because of a lack of experimental data. It's awfully difficult to track down the remnants of the first life, which by all indications must have been microscopic. In the absence of experimental input, theories are hard to construct. Look at string theory.
Having read your post, I still wonder what your point may be. Do you mean to say that a lack of a scientific theory is evidence of God's direct involvement in [insert your favorite phenomenon]? That scientists should not even try to find natural explanations? I'm curious.
Comment by olegt — July 6, 2009 @ 6:56 am
July 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The line is an empirical line. Don't claim that which goes beyond where the empirical evidence takes you unless you are willing to acknowledge your beliefs are faith based. Religious believers are more honest about their faith. The faith of secularists is hidden behind "you put your God in gaps (false for the reasons given) and I put materialism into my gaps. But only one of us is gapping. Ha ha ha.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 10:50 am
July 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I guess the difference is that some gaps are getting smaller and the filled areas larger. None of the areas that get filled in are being filled with 'god'. So it is not really a matter of putting something into the gaps, but simply evicting god out of gaps and replacing him/her with 'materialism'.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 10:54 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The point Olegt is that God is the source of those laws of nature fabulously described by great physicists throughout the years. That leaves me free to discover how God actualized his plan. Do laws of physics lead us to conclude that cells inevitably form in prebiotic conditions? I do not know because scientific data does not lead to confirmation of this. I am free to consider other than materalist options but if they are not viable then my base beliefs are unaffected. Atheists really have no OOL options and since most are philosophical naturalists, that means they are hopelessly confused about where science ends and scientifically supported beliefs begin.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 11:04 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Did you expect a labratory to conclude that based on testing we find that an omnipotent source was responsible? As I pointed out research cannot, even in principle, debunk a rational basis for theism. Some things are beyond science.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 11:11 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Certainly. Some things are beyond science. And some things are thought to be beyond science. And that is the reason why there is actually a 'god of the gaps' argument but not the equivalent 'materialism of the gaps'.
Science steadily and continuously fills in those areas that previously were thought to be beyond science. Those holes of knowledge, or gaps, if you will, can be filled with god. Yet, the holes are getting smaller.
On the other hand, for the materialist, it doesn't really matter one way or another. The gaps are unfilled. Maybe they will remain unfilled (leaving the theists holes) or they will get filled eventually.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 11:28 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Bradford wrote:
Shorter Bradford: If [insert favorite phenomenon] has no scientific explanation it's a sign of God's involvement. And when a scientific explanation for [insert favorite phenomenon] emerges, I'll just move the goal posts.
Been there, done that. Planetary motion, age of the Earth, origin of species… Have fun.
Comment by olegt — July 6, 2009 @ 11:39 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
olegt:
1- Bradford said "since Darwin", meaning a point in time
2- Darwin did have thoughts on the OoL
3- Wouldn't the first living organism be the origin of species?
olegt misrepresenting Creationists:
1- Imagination is not a substitute for science
2- Creationist then go about trying to understand God's Creation
That is how Newton did it. That is how Kepler did it. That is how Pasteur did it.
Do archeologists throw up their hands and say "I can't imagine how mother nature did this, so I declare it designed and we can all go home."
Methinks olegt is a strawman maker.
And I also say that geologists will have an easy time determining that Stonehenge is a natural formation than OoL researchers will have reducing living organisms to matter and energy.
All the imagination in the world isn't going to help.
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 11:41 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
olegt- did the space-time fabric just poof into existence?
And what about those laws that govern the universe? More poof?
Or did natural selection acting on random variations produce them?
Design is a scientific explanation. Imagination is not. And imagination appears to be all you have. That and the denial of the design inference.
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 11:44 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
olrgt:
It is made even harder given the fact that most current researchers are looking in the wrong place.
Hint- living organisms are not reducible to matter and energy
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 11:47 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Olegt:
No. If the phenomenon has no scientific explanation or if it does have a scientific explanation God is involved. Ignorance as to the details of God's plan is attributable to mankind and is sometimes dubbed a gap. But gaps reflect on us and not on God's causal connection to the phenomenon.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 11:49 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Bradford,
If God is involved no matter what, I don't understand why you object to anything.
Let me ask you this: are you okay with Einstein's theory of Brownian motion, which posits that such motion is random? What about orthodox quantum mechanics, which states that under certain circumstances the results of a measurement are totally, completely, unpredictably random? Do you mind? Do you care?
Comment by olegt — July 6, 2009 @ 11:56 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Joe,
Don't waste your time. I don't talk to people who are unable to carry on a civilized conversation.
Comment by olegt — July 6, 2009 @ 11:58 am
July 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I don't object to attempts to find answers but do object to attempts to portray research as having indicated that which it does not indicate. I can point out specific comments at TT which do that.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
ID guy lighten up on the poof stuff. I object when the other side does it so…
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Bradford,
Any thoughts on randomness in Brownian motion and quantum mechanics?
Comment by olegt — July 6, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I accept 99.999% of what is considered mainstream because the evidence backs theory. That's not the case with OOL theories.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Belief in a personal god is not a requirement for questioning materialism.
Natural selection doing something to random mutations was Darwin’s contribution to materialism, as the only explanation he could think of to explain the origin of creative biological novelty. A century and a half later, materialists have suggested nothing more than versions of RM&NS. (random drift instead of random mutations) In the meantime some scientists appear willing to abandon materialism. Some have become willing to entertain the possibility of intelligent choice and creativity as a natural attribute of living systems. James Shapiro, Mae Wan Ho, Stuart Hammeroff, Ted Steele, Eva Jablonsky and Eshel Ben Jacob are some of the scientists willing to explore a non materialistic view of evolution, views that include purposeful, intelligent choice. I’m sure there are others, for their numbers seem to be growing. Following are quotes from Eshel Ben Jacob:
http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/meaning%20based.pdf
. . .
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — July 6, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Darwin didn't know anything about genetic mutation, indeed, he didn't know anything about genetics. Darwin did propose a non-random, Lamarckian theory of heredity called Pangenesis.
Darwin observed natural variation and the process of competition for resources. He inferred that this competition led to changes in the composition of populations. He also observed the nested hierarchy, from which he deduced Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I am convinced that if Darwin were alive today he would be among those entertaining the possibility of intelligent choice as a participant in evolutionary processes. However biology does seem to be held hostage to materialists at the moment. At least on the internet.
Comment by Bert — July 6, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I strongly doubt it. Darwin was a very careful observer and scientist. There is no scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Zachriel:
How would you know?
You don't seem to be able to grasp scientific methodology.
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Zachriel:
That is a lie.
Darwin stole nested hierarchy from Linneaus who posited it as evidence for common design.
Darwin used extinctions to explain the distinct categories, not descent.
Educated people understand that evolution doesn't have a direction and nested hierarchies demand one.
Why you seem unable to grasp that basic and simple fact just further exposes your anti-science agenda.
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Do you know what the word "observed" means? In any case, the Theory of Common Descent makes specific predictions, predictions that have largely been verified over the last 150 years.
Gee Willikers! Descent is a critical component of the Theory of Common Descent. Extinctions result in divergence of character traits.
Strictly neutral evolution can create nested hierarchies.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Bradford, you admitted before that you believe in the flood. Is that a matter of faith or do you have some actual evidence for that?
Comment by Raevmo — July 6, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I have not spent much time looking into evidence for it. So what? Why do you care if I believe in it?
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Bradford:
So you believe in the flood why exactly?
Comment by Raevmo — July 6, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Educated people understand that evolution doesn't have a direction and nested hierarchies demand one.
Zachriel:
Just because you can say it doesn't make it so.
1- Evolution does not have a direction
2- Nested hierarchies demand a direction
3- Transitional forms ruin the distinct categories required by nested hierarchies
4- Nested hierarchies are built on defining characteristics
5- Descent is not a defining characteristic
And one more thing the theory of common descent does not make any predictions based on random variation and natural selection.
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I believe in the divinity of Christ and in the integrity of scripture. Why does this matter to you?
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Raevmo:
It very well could be the evidence of water everywhere we look.
That's what I would look for anyway.
Comment by ID guy — July 6, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Just wondering where you draw the line between faith and evidence, Bradford. If you believe in the flood, how do you reconcile that with the mountains of evidence against it? Is faith more important to you than evidence?
Comment by Raevmo — July 6, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I don't know that there are mountains of evidence against it. There are mountains of evidence against centralized economies but that does not keep some from striving for them. I'm a bit suspicious of claims after having familiarized myself with the details of some and then found them wanting yet popular. World in the Bible is often used to denote the world known to the peoples of that time i.e. the Middle East. I've read claims that this would be an erroneous interpretation but again I suspect the motives of dedicated debunkers who think their interpretive skills are paramount.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Raevmo, you never answered my question of why my beliefs matter to you?
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Bradford, I thought in this thread you opined about the beliefs of others.
Why does that matter to you?
Comment by Raevmo — July 6, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I wrote about an argumentative tactic that is frequently in evidence at TT. That's relevant to me.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I'd argue two points:
1. There definitely is a 'materialism of the gaps'. It is the belief that – no matter the evidence – the gap will be filled by natural processes.
2. I'd argue that the gaps are not getting smaller, but larger. The more we learn about the 'basics' of life, the harder it becomes to imagine (for all of us – not just those on 'my' side) a natural cause for it and the larger the gap between life and non-life becomes. The same is true of evolution, the more we learn about the differences between species, the larger the gaps become. IOW, the more we learn, the more we need God.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 6, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Evolution is undirected in the sense of not being under the supervision or regulation of an agent. However, evolution tends to expand to fill available niches.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. A nested hierarchy of classification, especially with regards to classification of living organisms by character traits, is called a taxonomy. A phylogeny is a nested hierarchy of descendant relationships and is closely allied to taxonomy.
No they don't. Indeed, they're *predicted*. That's what all the fuss about transitional fossils is all about.
A nested hierarchy can be built on defining characteristics. It's called a taxonomy.
A nested hierarchy can be built on descendant relationships. It's called a phylogeny. There's an entire field concerned with understanding these relationships called systematics.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
And I'd argue that this may or may not be the case. But in terms of scientific inquiry it is utterly irrelevant. Scientists will look at natural processes and know that supernatural processes are outside of their inquiry. Maybe, eventually, they will find that certain gaps can not be filled. But they will continue filling as many gaps as they can.
On the other hand, for 'god' these gaps are vital. They're the last and only refuge.
And I'd argue that in order to argue that the gaps are getting larger, you are simply ignoring the evidence. You take the totality of knowledge available. Without any scientific inquiry it could all be filled by 'god'. Every new scientific discovery fills in some gap.
This simply means that your gaps might get more numerous (because scientists amass more knowledge), but it does not mean that they are getting larger.
In any case. If you would like to believe that more knowledge about natural processes we amass, the greater the need for god… then that's fine. No sense in arguing with you anymore. Just enjoy the ride: Science will chug on to create ever smaller gaps of an ever increasing number.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Bradford well put, I think your describing the extremist that dwell on both sides of the isle. We all know their names. One big problem is the political activism that's been going on for the last few years which has muddied the waters, and there is enough guilt to go around. There also seems to be a visceral hostility on the part of many in the scientific community that seems to go beyond scientific reasoning. This kind of Carl Sagan approach of having a narrator tell us that "we are just an insignificant speck of dust in the universe" is a statement that is philosophical or esoteric in nature, is bigger better? and is it really the role of the scientist to speak of these philosophical views under the umbrella of empirical science? Unfortunately naturalism is exercised with a religious fervor by most. To be fair there are also many in the scientific community and probably the majority who honestly base their beliefs on their interpretation of the evidence and dont participate in marginalizing peoples faith or using "if I were God I wouldnt have done it this way" arguments. There seems to be some documented evidence of dissent however small but consistently growing. Separating fact from fiction is a real chore for anyone but mostly for the uninformed.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 3:21 am
July 7th, 2009 at 5:29 am
themayan:
Yes, the fundamentalism of some naturalism enthusiasts rivals that of their religious counterparts. Want to see some religious fervor? No need to go to a church or other such place of worship. Just stop by an internet site like TT and watch the predators descend on those holding mainstream religious beliefs.
Yes, scientists come in all shapes and sizes and we need to avoid the urge to stereotype.
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2009 @ 5:29 am
July 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
The truth is I actually have no problem with the concept of macro evolution if I'm ancestral to a sponge or protozoa so be it. It doesn't interfere with my personal metaphysical beliefs. For years I fell for the "there's overwhelming evidence" mantra. Of course Ive changed my mind over the years once I learned how weak the theory was in terms of macro molecule to man evolution and the limitations of Darwinism, and how the evidence was being cherry picked. Not to mention the dreaded thorn in the side origins question.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 8:43 am
July 7th, 2009 at 9:26 am
You share a common ancestor with the sponge. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2009 @ 9:26 am
July 7th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Well I have been feeling a little bloated lately. I guess if this were a show on who my baby daddy, the protozoa would be off the hook.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 9:56 am
July 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Bradford:
You can't be serious, Bradford. Do you actually believe that someone loaded a pair of almost every animal species in a boat and landed on the top of a mountain whereupon they recolonized the world? And Noah and his relatives are our ancestors? I really hope you are joking.
Comment by Raevmo — July 7, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
July 8th, 2009 at 12:31 am
I'm not sure if the story of Noah's arc is a metaphor or an actual event, more likely a metaphor. I'm sure the question is just tongue and cheek friendly ribbing. However with all this talk about statistical probabilities and quantum physics going around, I would bet the farm that there's a greater mathematical probability of finding the antediluvian arc of the bible and the toe nail of Cleopatra than there is of a living cell coming to existence with out intelligent guidance. The bible is recognized as an historical document and biblical archeology is a confirmed science. Is this a Darwin of the gaps argument?
Comment by themayan — July 8, 2009 @ 12:31 am
July 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
First, nice blog and thanks.
Second, I had time off today and ended up meandering through the internet in and around the evolution issue, just for fun. I am neither a scientist nor a creationist but must say that having read about 30+ hours worth of stuff over the years, i.e. about 2000 pages at least, that I have been unable to find anything convincing on either side. Furthermore, I think the creationist-versus-Darwinianist divide is itself a red herring, albeit one that distracts so many otherwise intelligent people that far more interesting science, and therefore knowledge and progress, has been obfuscated, if not outright suppressed. That is a real shame.
My two cents: first of all, I don’t buy the teleological a priori assumed in the Darwinian argument and I base that not only on my own intuition-derived prejudices, but the fossil record which demonstrates a remarkable degree of complexity in fossilized organisms going back deep in so-called geological time, or put another way: I have yet to see evidence of any truly simple organisms developing into complex ones, and I am not sure if we have any truly ‘simple’ organisms extant today given the extraordinary sophistication of even so-called ‘simple’ things like a virus.
Second: no man – or organism – is an island. Like the above-mentioned virus. You can analyse a virus or bacterium as a discrete, material thing, but of course its properties exist within a larger, dynamic context including other organisms, not to mention basics like water, sunlight, atmosphere, gravity, solar systems and so forth. This is similar to the irreducible complexity argument – which has much merit at least for this layman not interested in who or what is the source of the ‘intelligence’ quotient necessarily – in that if you take any element away – i.e. the Sun – the entire organism ceases to be viable.
Third: back to teleology: the a priori is that things are going in a direction towards an end. Leaving aside the merits of that assumption in the usual sense, it also presupposes linear time. I am not aware of any method by which materialist science can verify the existence of time. Time is not physical and therefore not measurable without creating devices such as clocks. But although it can be measured it cannot be weighed or otherwise quantified or proven. The entire evolutionary theory depends upon the acceptance of time as a given. And yet there is no way of proving this as a constant. Without proving the solid, factual existence of time, the entire evolutionary premise is no more than a belief masquerading as a fact.
As I was reading through some of the pros and cons (by the way, there are many good sources verifying the flood, both scientific and anecdotal), an image kept reoccurring in response: imagine you are a scientist being asked to explain how it is that a hitherto unknown species in a new planet that you are observing is driving down a road in a car. Using materialist science, how can you determine all the factors at play? You can analyse the body, the hands, eyes, legs, arms etc. and determine that it is organic versus the vehicle which is a contrived machine, you can deduce that the road is also manufactured and put in place somehow, but how can you prove the material locus of the intelligence that is clearly being exercised by the organism in steering the car down the road? Or put another way: because the driver wishes to steer down that road, he ensures that he remains on the road in order to get to where he is going.
So that is the teleological aspect right there: the driver intends to steer down the road. We cannot prove – materially – exactly how this functions because mind has no material existens that can be quantifiably measured in material quanta – but we can ‘scientifically’ observe that clearly he is driving down that road and not veering off over the cliffs on one side or into the swamps on the other. So there is intention or motivation.
Let us say, then, that there is some motivation behind the life force, to exist, to thrive. And this motivation has something to do with how the body and mind of that organism functions.
Purely on the material level, it is rather difficult to go much further than that which is why I agree with the comment above somewhere that there are limits to what science can determine just as one cannot determine from examining a physical book anything substantive about the nature of the being who wrote it. A book is made of paper, ink and so forth and reveals very, very little about the human organism who wrote it, let alone the printing press, the forests, the trucks, the computer typesetting technology etc. You can inspect that book all you want, microscopically or subatomically, but you will learn almost nothing about who wrote it.
For materialist scientists to maintain that they can do so is clear proof of just how low our entire educational system, and thus contemporary culture, have fallen of late, that such a huge, glaring fault in simple common sense is so continuously ignored by so many.
Evolution theory was developed at the height of the industrial revolution during an extraordinary period of rapid technological advancement during which political and cultural innovation was in high gear. Many cultural institutions – including the Christian Church and Monarchy – were unable to keep up with ‘facts on the ground’. Darwinian evolution theory is mainly, as far as I can tell, a highly intelligent, pseudo-scientific argument against conventional notions of a controlling God. Actually, it is not so much an argument as it is an expression of a new world view, or belief system which in shorthand is referred to as ‘materialism’. Basically, all it says is that life is a mechanical process. That’s all it says. Nothing more, nothing less.
It does not explain how someone can drive a car down a road. It cannot deduce from a book the nature of the being who wrote it. Basically, it is a very childish, incomplete belief system. It is very disheartening to see how so many people have fallen for it without examining hardly any of the a priori assumptions behind it.
Although I am not a great fan of the Bible, I have to say that I find Genesis a more likely possibility as an explanation – metaphorically speaking. Furthermore, I see no fundamental philosophical difference between Genesis and the Big Bang theory. But since both somewhat presuppose constant linear time (albeit Genesis less so, arguably), they are both deeply flawed. But that is my personal opinion and not germane to the discussion.
Comment by ash — July 9, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
July 10th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Well thank you ash. It's rare to see a nice comment. You gotta be new to TT.
I like the direction idea. It is an indicator of a telic process and begins with the birth of the universe. I think we are better advised to focus on sequences of events in an assessment of natural history.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2009 @ 8:05 am
July 10th, 2009 at 10:50 am
But how can you even do that without even being able to "verify the existence of time"?
Comment by hrun — July 10, 2009 @ 10:50 am
July 10th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
In that investigation, did you happen to notice what experts — i.e., people that have read a life time's worth of stuff — think?
Oh, and what do you mean by "either side"? Science vs. Creationism? Surely you understand that science has proved itself over and over.
By the way, consider this: if we can't verify the existence of time, how are you going to make it to your appointments today? What in the Bible is legitimate without time? Isn't creationism equally troubled by an inability to verify time?
Of course, we can and have verified the existence of time, but that's another topic.
Comment by don provan — July 10, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
July 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
"I like the direction idea. It is an indicator of a telic process and begins with the birth of the universe. I think we are better advised to focus on sequences of events in an assessment of natural history."
Time clearly exists on a perceptual level and thus in terms of natural history obviously we can try to piece together things that happened before now. Furthermore, I am sure there are certain ways of measuring time scientifically in terms of molecular changes, genetic transmissions/alterations etc. that can be more or less accurate. However, therein lies a problem, namely that we have no way of verifying one way or another whether the processes today that take x units of currently measured time functioned in the same way earlier or will function in the same way later.
For example, if as is probable, the earth's rotational cycle has altered on occasion from 365.x days per annum to something different – which may well have happened after the 10000-ish BC cataclysm for example – it is possible that chemical and other processes by which time are measured may also have been altered. And that is just a random example, there could be many other causes and conditions governing chemical processes and their duration that are unknown to us and, logically, very hard to determine since we can only experiment and deduce within the current parameters.
Furthermore, in several of my reading, which is admittedly peripatetic and purely for fun, I have come across reports stating that when proven recent substances were subjected to oft-used age-determining processes, they were off by enormous orders of magnitude, casting into doubt the entire methodologies involved (sorry, no links etc.).
However, the remarks above are more related to technical issues and not the main point which was: whether we are dealing with 'natural history' or not, there is an assumption made (for whatever reason but I suspect it has to do with our perception of time as a linearly progressing process) that things start from an Origin (Point A) and then proceed or progress to an end or destination (Point B) and there is a presumption that Point B represents some sort of advancement or progress.
Speaking from the point of view of common sense, I do not see that in everyday life. Yes, the cat pouncing from here (Point A) to there (Point B) at which is found the objective (hapless Mouse!) is progress of sorts, but at the same time it is inarguable that despite this relative, immediate 'success', that cat will soon die as all cats before have done, as everyone reading this blog will soon do as well. Or put another way: we come in as infants, grow for a while, do whatever we do for a while, then at some point – assuming we have a long life and are not caught up as one of the 60 million victims in the Bolshevik revolution, the current Iraq war etc.etc. – we start to shrink, become weaker physically and mentally, and then die, with all corporeal elements dissolving as such back into whence they came (wherever that is). In other words, where is the progress even though there is progression from Point A to Point B?
Everything arises, dwells for a while, then ceases. This seems to be an easily observable truth. Given this truth or 'scientific fact', from whence comes the notion that 'evolution' is by definition a process by which simple, original structures and organisms 'evolve' into more complex ones?
This to me is one of the major a priori assumptions for which no evidence has been supplied – at least I have yet to read of any. It fits with our perception of time and so is very easy to take as a given, but if you actually examine the premise, there is little evidence for it anywhere in any natural process we can observe.
Furthermore, no matter where you stand with the adaptation-evolution-ID-creationism paradigms, I think it is fair to say that none of them – with the possible exception of ID which is, essentially, still a very simplistic explanation when all is said and done with many 'gaps' waiting to be filled – explain how remarkably stable all observable forms in our world are, be they of the inanimate or inanimate variety, even though they exist in a swirling, constantly changing potage of molecular excitation, not to mention ongoing carnage. Darwin's theory does not address the remarkable stability of the various species, only attempts to hypothesise how things have changed from monocellular to remarkably complex organisms. I have yet to read any substantive evidence that such a thing occurs and would be grateful for specific references to it. Of course it is possible, but again – using everyday experience – I have not witnessed it in nature myself nor read of any specific examples that can easily be verified.
So that is my main point about time: in dealing with 'history' and because of the linear quality of how we perceive time as corporeal entities during our limited duration of physical existence in any particular form – or format for that matter, it seems very easy to accept an a priori assumption, which is expressly behind the entire evolutionary hypothesis, that things are progressing forwards and along with that that they are progressing from simple to complex. Simply put: I don't buy that assumption and it is very rarely addressed – at least I cannot remember one single instance of it being addressed in the context of discussion so-called 'evolution'. (Why not devolution, for example as some have posited? Seems just as valid a starting assumption to me, but that is beside the point.)
In response to: "In that investigation, did you happen to notice what experts — i.e., people that have read a life time's worth of stuff — think?": my answer is both yes and no. No because I have not taken the time to read long books about the subject, rather read what is/was available on the internet every once in a while when I get interested in contemplating the issue. In fact, I am more interested in how the interchange unfolds than which 'side' (and of course there are many more than two although sometimes that is hard to discern from all the unnecessary rhetorical flourish that flies around) is correct.
I have become quite disillusioned with modern science because of the way the debate is usually conducted, although it is quite possible that I have encountered mainly the frothy, rhetorical surface of the polemic and have not taken the time to delve sufficiently into the details presented. That said, I suspect that if more substantive details had or are being presented – especially from so-called Darwinianists or those who believe in materialist-based reality ( a term they don't necessarily use in describing themselves of course nor necessarily understand), then I would have encountered them.
For example, I am unaware of a single example of one species changing into another that can be objectively verified. I am unaware of a single living example of a transitional form in any species of plant, animal or human. I am aware that certain fossils have been dated to present a seeming progression but that there is no fossil that shows a cat turning into a dog, or a common ancestor of both that later bifurcated. Again, perhaps my study has been shallow, but also again: if there were many examples I strongly suspect that a) I would have encountered them frequently and b) there would not be a debate about this in the first place.
What I do see is a belief system argument, which is why creationism comes into it whereas, as Bradford has mentioned several times in this or other threads I read through, there is no reason to bring it in. What the materialists in the discussion are unwilling to admit – as far as I can tell – is that the materialist view is philosophically speaking a belief system, and scientifically speaking an unverified 'a priori assumption', sort of like 'judicial notice' in a court proceeding. i.e. we proceed based upon the assumption that things started from nothing and gradually developed from there into the infinite complexity we see today.
There is no evidence for this assumption, as intuitively simple and easy as it is to adopt.
Comment by ash — July 10, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
July 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
ash:
Hi ash. What a stimulating piece you wrote! Reaching conclusions consists of evaluating evidence. But then we each filter it through our prejudices. Humans can’t seem to help making up, and then becoming committed to, stories explaining why the universe is the way it is. Religious people had all those problems of explaining the existence of ‘evil‘ in their story. Materialists struggle to explain away all that obvious evidence of direction over time. Maybe we could devise a better story if we assumed that what we see — is what is intended. Both evil and purpose are essential aspects of reality. The purpose of the universe was to develop the way it developed. We can’t say for sure that it is more complex now, because we don’t really understand how complex it was to begin with. However we can say that, in our little corner of the universe at least, there has been an expansion of volition. Human are faced with more choices than hydrogen atoms are. But we won that freedom. As in Lamarckism, used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Volition wouldn’t have developed without conflict.
So, yes, I am a proponent of intelligent design – intelligent self-design. The religious stories have lost much of their power to control our views. The materialist story still exerts some coercive control in academia. But I sense that humanity is ripe for a new story.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — July 11, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
July 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Bert: I think you have hit the nail on the head by identifying narrative as a root dynamic in all this. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that part of the reason this particular debate continues largely on a rhetorical versus the so-called 'scientific and thus definitively falsifiable or verifiable' plane is that ultimately what is indeed being argued is narrative, essentially, in nature.
I have long felt that narrative is perhaps a modus that best expresses the pith of cognitive insight wherein both rational and intuitional intelligence is most efficiently combined. Going further along those lines, I expect that the unwillingness to 'scientifically' explore the intuitional side – which is a feature of modern Western not shared by traditional Eastern philosophical traditions btw – from which we have a modern science that seemingly eschews the verse of intuition for the pure prose of fact-based veracity, is a core fault, or fallacy, indeed ongoing fault line. When those mental tectonic plates shift once more, as indubitably they shall, science will charge forward once again, but hopefully not in such conflict with traditional wisdom lineages which have far more to offer than most people schooled in contemporary institutions have yet glimmered.
In short: true scientific discipline will incorporate many elements of what we now call 'narrative' as part of how things are analysed, categorised, sequenced, presented, argued and concluded. Not only that, but we can once again go beyond overly simplistic either-or polemics (as in good versus bad guys). Indeed, it is partly because of this rather limited, perhaps one could say even binary, approach that our mutual ability to discuss various different options seems sadly challenged these days, given that on so many levels we see replicated the dynamic so well expressed by the recent American President in the formula: ' you are either with us or against us.'
Actually, I think on many levels there is not all that much difference between the creationist, the ID-ist, and the Darwinianist but certain differences that do exist have become the entire subject matter so much are we caught up in the us-versus-them plot line that prevail all over the place these days.
Comment by ash — July 11, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
July 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Much as we bemoan the intransigence of the opposition, there isn’t much left to say when we are in agreement, is there? If ever a consensus is reached it will put an end to all our fun speculations.
Comment by Bert — July 11, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
July 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Hi ash.
Your statements about time reminded me of one of the characteristics of God as "a being who exists outside the constraints of time". Time truly is a byproduct of creation, and we, being fully immersed in it, cannot fathom an existence that is not linear – from beginning to end. Thus we always – when debating origins – ask "what came before that?" and "Who created God?".
The obvious implications of linear time are that there is either 1) an infinite regress of causalities, 2) a time when there was literally 'nothing', or 3) a cause that exists outside the realm of time (i.e. is eternal).
If #1, then time has always been linear yet has no beginning. If #2, then it is possible to get something from nothing. And if #3, then time is a creation of something eternal (i.e. God).
To my mind, both #1 and #2 seem illogical. Only #3 makes sense to me. Of course I believed in God before I considered this question so I am biased in that regard.
By the way, just as an aside, you mentioned in another post that you didn't remember how to use html tags in your posts. If you look between Leave a Reply and the text box where you type in your replies, the tags are there – including some helpful Quicktags.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 11, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
( Hopefully that works! Because I am on rural dialup have disabled images and didn't notice the quick tags..)
Daniel, I don't really see a difference between 1, 2 and 3 in that with 1 & 2 the terms 'infinite' and 'nothing' are fundamentally interchangeable, i.e. 0 = infinity structurally/practically speaking. As to #3, we are back to Square One by having to explain from where that external agent originates/originated. In other words, all three ultimately state: from nothing something arose.
But these can lead into a consideration of linear (also relative). What if we get more Buddhist/Daoist about this and posit that both exist together? This is harder to find explicitly expressed (although clearly implied) in Daoist terminology, but in the Buddhist tradition the classic expression, as often translated into English, goes something along the lines of: 'form is emptiness and emptiness is form'. In perhaps easier language we could say: 'energy is space and space is energy' (and one could easily substitute the term 'matter' for energy since fundamentally they are equivalent.
I tried posting something in the Diehard thread but comments are closed. As with most of my posts here (for some reason!), they were too long. Suffice to say that in terms of the intelligence quotient/element/presence, perhaps we could say that intelligence is not so much something produced by organisms as filtered. What is referred to as 'God' can perhaps be simplistically explained as the universal field (space) in which all phenomena (matter/energy) manifests. An insect processes this same universal space differently from a human, just as one individual human also processes it differently from another. The underlying field/space is universal (absolute on some level) whereas the particular, individuated processing dynamic determines how such space is perceived as having relative locality and temporality.
This is analagous to how a radio, accessing 'universally the same' radio frequencies, can attune via various simple mechanisms to different stations such that at one moment it will be playing the jazz and another the rock stations.
Going back to another analogy: we cannot determine much – scientifically speaking – about an author by analysing only the physical/material book, made of paper and ink, in front of us. With advanced technology we can delve into the molecular constituents of the same, even accurately deduce that paper derives 'originally' from plant fibres, in this case a particular species of tree, even perhaps even determine exactly 'where' those trees were located, but we cannot determine the height, voice quality, body odor etc. of the author, nor even no for sure if that individual was male, female, human, a ghost, had two arms or ten etc. etc. And yet clearly there is evidence of intelligence in that the book – assuming we can understand the language – means something.
We cannot either measure 'meaning', i.e. the difference between a 'gripping' or 'boring' story etc. At least scientifically speaking. So science can accurately measure and analyse the nature of the radio waves along which are transmitted jazz or rock, but cannot definitively 'quantify' their qualitative differences.
I believe that most of the debate about evolution involves matters which are actually beyond the nature of materialist science to determine. Simple as that. What is required is a better working definition of what can and cannot be determined 'scientifically'; furthermore, within the discipline this should be a required part of a required preamble to any thesis/hypothesis etc., that the a prioris involved be clearly stated and defined first, based on which assumptions Theory X or Y is expressed, evidence clearly measured and documented along with references or process descriptions that permit easy third party verification, and from which reasonable conclusions, finally can be drawn.
Seems to me that 'Science' has serious procedural issues to deal with and these are often overlooked (deliberately by some and ignorantly by most) to the detriment of all involved.
Comment by ash — July 12, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
July 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Science has no problem with any procedural issues. It sounds like you are simply ignorant of the procedures. This is evident from all the metaphysical junk you're tossing around as if it should be considered by science, when, in fact, science is designed to focus questions to achieve practical answers rather than mystical ones.
Comment by don provan — July 13, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 3:06 am
Don re: "Science has no problem with any procedural issues. It sounds like you are simply ignorant of the procedures."
I am largely ignorant, but have read enough to know that peer review is a largely absent process these days in many fields/publications, but more importantly there seems to be remarkably little consensus about just about anything; whereas the scientific method was supposed to be able to come to fairly – if not absolutely – definite conclusions about the workings of nature/reality/the world, however you want to term 'it'.
This comment is very late in coming, but many subsequent posts about New Atheism, Narrative etc. tackle the interface between 'science' and 'metaphysics' directly, and of course when dealing with origin of life type issues, it is almost absurd to try to exclude metaphysics etc. altogether.
Comment by ash — August 1, 2009 @ 3:06 am