Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:00 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen <polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909163524.W98938-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> In-Reply-To: <20020909121150.X1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > > > > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > > > > to me. Please explain. > > > > > > > > It has one less premise. > > > > > > Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. > > > > I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. > > Self-creation is a logical contradiction. It is still a logical > contradiction whether you see it or not. > That's assuming you are god. > > > > So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable > > > to supernatural creation. > > > > I fail to see the absurdity. Further, I fail to see how any > > creation precludes supernatural involvement. > > Who is arguing that? > > > > Further, you are effectively claiming that the existance of > > creation is physical evidence of God, and we know the Bible > > specifically claims that God does not offer physical evidence, > > since if He did, faith would not be necessary. Further, physical > > evidence of God is a cotradiction of the doctorine of Free Will. > PLeas.e > Eh, chapter and verse, please. Actually the Bible seems to indicate > the exact opposite. See Psalm 19, Romans 1 for example. It is > the physical evidence that leaves man without any excuse. Physical > evidence of God is a contradiction of the doctrine of free will? > How so? > > > > > This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who > > > believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to > > > type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me > > > to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? > > > Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs > > > could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. > > > > Randomly, and kept as a result of being advantageous to the > > survival of the genes. > > Yeah, and a million monkeys given enough time can produce the works of > Shakespeare. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale... > > > > > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > > > > about creationism? > > > > > > -chat is a "technical" mailing list? > > > > Well, "-chat", wherever that's hosted, probably isn't, but Nope. > > "FreeBSD-chat" is arguably FreeBSD related, at least in extremis. > > 8-). > > Okay, take your ball and go home, if you must. 8-( > > > > > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > > > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > > > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > > > > > > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > > > > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > > > > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > > > > balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > > > > > Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. > > > > It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of keeping to a > > single stream of argument in a single message thread. If you > > want to start a seperate thread, feel free to make a seperate > > posting. Be aware that I will probably just cite the Federalist > > Papers, read one response, and then, if that response is not Wrong. > > cogent, ignore the rest of the thread. > > Well, I suppose that's best left as an argument for another time. > BTW, yes I do know about the relevence of the Federalist Papers. > > > > > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > > > > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > > > > "evolution" theory. > > > > > > The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. > > > > According to you. > > > > Look, I can personally make your theological arguments better > > than you can, and I can do it in a context of the validity of > > the right of secular science to come up with theories which > > contradict religious doctorine, particularly when the results > > ar 8) e to be taught in secular schools sponsored by a secular state. > > If you think my theological arguments are substandard, then by > all means you are free to improve on them. And who is claiming > secular science does not have the right to come up with theories > which contradict religious doctrine? And the whole purpose of > the "secular" state in the first place was to preserve religious > freedom, not to dogmatically ram naturalist philosophy down > people's throats. Once again, naturalists prove that they are > unwilling to be tolerant of opposing views. > > > > I don't understand what you are arguing, apart from trying to > > weasel people down to the teaching of religious doctorinal > > theory as some sort of equivalence to a theory derived from > > the same principles, and meeting the same strict tests, as the > > theiry it claims equivalence to. > BIBLE SAYS Qpoint system for sins!> I'm just trying to get people to re-examine their basic > philosophical presuppositions, and to see the anti-religious > bigotry of promoting evolution as "truth" in public schools > when you yourself admit it is just a theory. If it is just > a theory, why teach it as fact? Why not a little honesty > and humility? Too much to ask for? > > > > How about we start by you stating that you think creationism > > is a theory, and that you are willing to replace that theory, > > should a more rigorous one come along? > > It's not so much that, as that *any* theory about origins is going > to be loaded down with philosophical or religious baggage. In fact, > there are only two possible theories for this, and they will in the > nature of the case be diametrically opposed to each other. I'm not > asking for creation to be dogmatically taught in secular schools. > I would just like the courtesy of a level playing field, or else > the return of my tax dollars that are being used to indoctrinate > people with views that I am philosophically opposed to. > > > > > > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > > > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > > > > > > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > > > > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > > > > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > > > > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > > > > > > Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a > > > contradiction. > > > > No, it's not, but I hardly have time to educate you to the level > > of a PhD in mathematics, with a field emphasis on chaos and large > > number thory, particularly if you are going to approach it as an > > adversarial process. > > It doesn't matter how many PhD's a person has in mathematics, the > belief that chaos gives rise to order is prima facie irrational, > as it is a blatant contradiction in terms. You don't need a PhD > to see that, all you need is to see that the emperor is wearing > no clothes. > > > > > As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it > > > isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used > > > to "prove" the existence of chance. > > > > It's pseudo random. Just like "chance". I just have a particular > > problem with the application of large number theory in /dev/random. > > 8-). > That's about as logical as something from that 2600 moron. > It appears we are talking past each other. You agree that what > people call "chance" is not random at all? > > > > > So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with > > > evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly > > > off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. > > > > Let me disabuse you of that interpretation. Selection does not > > imply someone to select. It doesn't preclude it, but from our > > understanding, it is the physical laws which govern selection. > > If you believe this, you *must* be a determinist not only with > regard to life, but with regard to man's reason as well. Reason > cannot be accounted for solely on naturalistic terms. We've > gone over this before, and I didn't see a satisfactory answer. > In fact, you appealed to "randomness" which you now appear to be > rejecting. If its the physical laws that account for life, it > is the physical laws that account for belief, even those that are > diametrically opposed to yours. What is your proposed solution > to this dilemma? > > > > "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein > > An inaccurate statement, to say the least, which can at best > lead to pantheism, at worst atheism (which are really the same > thing, after all, per Spinoza). > > > > > The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless > > > you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves > > > nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not > > > input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those > > > selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently > > > designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the > > > whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION > > > CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed > > > into the system, which forces you into a theistic wo NOPE. rldview. > > > > Let's go back to a random mutation that results in an organsim > > capable of breating Chlorine, but incapable of breathing Oxygen. > > > > The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- > > is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen > > and other trace gasses. > > > > Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. > > > > By insisting that selection has a "first mover", you Deify nature. > > I don't have a problem with you being a Deist, but you probably > > ought to examine your own nature before you try to examine that > > of others, and find them wanting in your eyes. > > Actually it would be incorrect to classify me as a Deist, since I > believe in the doctrine of God's providence. In fact, I don't > believe that the uniformity of nature can be accounted for *without* > the doctrine of God's providence, since we end up right back to > the skepticism of David Hume. Aristotle's first mover cannot account > for the uniformity of nature either. > > > > > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > > > > > > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> > > > > b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not > > > > ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> > > > > > > > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. > > > > > > Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the > > > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal :8 > > > concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as > > > such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why > > > is it so hard to admit that? > > > > Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really > > annoys you about it. > > Whether or not it annoys me is irrelevent. Evolution does indeed attempt > to give an explanation without reference to God, but replaces Him with > an absurdity: random mutations giving rise to increasing degrees of > complexity. > Random>? I think not/ > > > It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there > > isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic > > world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of > > whether or not there is God. > > Actually it is completely unworkable without positing the existence of > God, since it relies on the general uniformities of nature and the laws > of physics, which cannot be accounted for on anything but a theistic > worldview. > > > > Evolution does not comment on God, at all. > > Actually, by asserting that God is not necessary, it is making quite > an explosive comment. > > > > I'll fully admit that it is in the realm of philosophy -- all > > science is in the realm of philosophy. "PhD" means "Doctor of > > Philosophy" (when translated to English). > > > > That doesn't make it a part of the realm of religion, unless you > > happen to cleave to a *particular* philosophy that has as one of > > its tenets that it is required to do so. > > > > The "and" in "religion and philosophy" was implied by your own > > prejudices. > > Religion and philosophy deal with identical questions, so the > conjunction is warranted. The choosing of a naturalistic philosophy > over a supernaturalistic one determines how one interprets the facts. > > > > > > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > > > > > > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > > > > in useful ways. > > > > > > And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with > > > naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you > > > afraid they might actually think for themselves? > > > > No, we are afraid that they will be about as useful to species > > survival as the people who teach "new math" or "outcome based > > education", where it's more important to respect the individual's > > opinions than it is to maintain a working society. 8-). > > And you think I'm dogmatic! Yeesh! > > > > There's nothing that actually forces this so-called "indoctrination" > > which you find offensive. Because the state recognizes you freedom > > of religion -- your freedom to turn the "and" in "religion and > > philosphy" into an equivalence relationship -- the state permits you > > to teach your children whatever you want to teach them, in private > > schools. > > If the state didn't not extract money from my paycheck for the support > of public schools, I would agree with you. > > > > > > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > > > > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > > > > predictive than "evolution" theory. > > > > > > Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. > > > They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary > > > dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into > > > the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) > > > > That's simply not true. The failure to displace evolutionary > > theory is based solely on the inability of creationist dogmatists > > to produce a theory that better fits the fitness function than > > evolutionary theor Nope. y. > > Have you read Michael Behe? William Dembski? Michael Denton? > > > > In fact, evolutionary theory has changed a number of times. It > > will change again in the future. Your putative blind defenders > > of the status quo would act against those changes, in the same > > way that they would act against a sufficiently explanatory > > creationist theory. Yet the changes have occurred anyway. This > > places the blame not on defenders of the status quo, but on your > > theorists, who failed to be as convincing as those who succeeded > > in the same putative environment of intellectual inetia. > > Well, I must admit that the ID movement is young, and time will > tell. > > > > > > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > > > > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > > > > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > > > > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > > > > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > > > > through His choice of natural laws. > > > > > > At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without > > > moving into a theistic worldview. Next. > > > > No. Merely that it is representable in a theistic intellectual > > space, by someone who insists that everything exist within a > > theistic intellectual space at all times. > > Too bad. 8-( > > > > > But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? > > > > To let them talk? > > It was a rhetorical question. 8-) > > > > > Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating > > > about God? > > > > Apparently so... 8-). > > Apparently so, yet that doesn't mean that everyone is right. 8-) > > > > > Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has > > > created the universe? > > > > Not unless we want to contradict the doctorine of Free Will, which > > many religions hold to be sacrosanct. It's safer to not get involved > > in theistic arguments, except as necessary to point out that, by > > making a scientific argument, one is not necessarily making a > > theistic argument. > > It depends on what you mean by the doctrine of free will. If you mean > that man is free to decide for himself the nature of reality, the notion > of free will is absurd. On the other hand, Christianity teaches that > man is enslaved to sin, so free will pretty much became irrelevent at > the fall. Man still freely chooses what he wants to do, but the problem > of course is what he wants to do. > > > > I'm sorry that evolutionary theory challenges your religious doctrine. > > At one time, your religion accepted the Earth-centric Ptolemeyic model > > of the universe as true, and incorporated the idea into the religious > > doctorine of a human-centric special creation. Now it no longer clings > > to that idea. > > That's what got the church into trouble in the first place! Galileo > never opposed the teaching of scripture, it was the Aristotelian > philosophy that had invaded the church that he found himself up IGNORE EVERYTHING I"VE SAID> > against. > > > > In my opinion, it is best if religion stays out of the adoption of > > scientific theory as doctorine. Scientific theories are, inevitably, > > replaced with new theories, and they are unsuitable subjects for > > doctorine. If a religion demands that the universe was created by > > God, let it do so without attempting to tell God how He did it, and > > allow people the intellectual freedom to speculate on the topic. It > > may be the reason the people are there in the first place. > > With this I think I can agree. 8-) > > > Neal > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > i love romania. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909163524.W98938-100000>