Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote:
> > You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think
> > I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible.
>
> Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning,
> and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view.
> We can start with "light bulbs work".
Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work"
is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to
provide a justification.
> > As you have noted, it was not Biblical doctrine, it was Aritotelian
> > philosophy that the Catholic Church had incorporated into its
> > doctrine. It's not at all surprising, given human nature, but it
> > is regrettable.
>
> There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered
> part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather
> arbitrary and political, as well.
Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic
worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes
to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God
is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure
that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. Political
considerations are irrelevant.
> > Kind of like the mathematical improbability of evolution is so
> > amazingly large that it can't happen either? 8-) Why *should* chance
> > favor order rather than disorder?
>
> I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as
> such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases
> order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy.
This sounds to me like an embarrassing rescuing device intended to hide
the fact that the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to one
of the best attested laws of science. You can't even demonstrate that
"extropy" is even occuring, as the empirical and fossil evidence indicates
that species tend toward extinction rather than the other way around. At
every point evolution is based on speculation about what "might" be
occurring. Even Gould realized that the fossil record didn't support
Darwinian evolution, which is why he proposed "punctuated equilibria" in
the first place, so that the lack of fossil evidence serves as "evidence"
for the truth of his theory. Pretty clever, don't you think, building
into the theory immunity from lack of evidence?
> > > "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large
> > > number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of
> > > randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence
> > > will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really
> > > random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory,
> > > combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite
> > > probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at
> > > a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen.
> >
> > Yes, but the odds against it for all intents and purposes make it a
> > statistical impossibility.
>
> That's wrong. You misapprehend the nature of infinity, and we
> have given them an infinite amount of time to complete their
> task.
I see. So your view is based on yet more faith commitments and
speculation. Trouble is the Second Law militates against the
notion that the universe is infinitely old. But I forgot, you've
got a faith commitment to get around that too.
> > Moreover, if you think *that* is how life
> > arose, why do you use your eyes as though they were designed for seeing
> > and that they can give you accurate information? It would be like if
> > you were driving in the mountains, and a rock slide occurred blocking
> > your road, and some of the rocks just happen to randomly arrange
> > themselves into the words "Hello, Earthling". Now, statistically its
> > certainly possible, but you would be in error to suppose that some
> > kind of meaningful message was being communicated. So why suppose
> > that your senses, that arose by chance, convey anything meaningful
> > to you? In fact, why suppose that there even *is* a you?
>
> Because it's expedient.
It's also expedient to believe in absurdities, like that given enough
time, anything can happen. And people call this science! Tell me,
how do you know that in this so-called random chance universe, some
random event won't end this little fluke that we call existence?
> > > The general consensus is that it started with the exchange of
> > > linear RNA segments Eucaryotes.
> >
> > Oh yeah, as if this didn't beg the question!
>
> It doesn't. Perhaps it raises others, but it answers the one you asked.
If you are going to continue to insist that life arose this way, you
will have to eventually get around to answering the question as to
how you think your reasoning ability isn't just an illusion, since if
you are right, you can't help but reason the way you do. You also
cannot account for your freedom, since all of your choices are the
result of the laws of physics. Your view undercuts the ability of
reason to transcend nature in order to understand it.
> > > Not really. If something is possible, no matter how improbable,
> > > given an infinite amount of time...
> >
> > You stretch credulity to its limits!
>
> What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided
> by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers
> are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by
> the number of real numbers?
Mathematics cannot be used to prove that the universe is infinitely
old. Your reasoning here is just as fallacious as that of Zeno's
paradoxes that purportedly "proved" that you could never get from
point A to point B.
> All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and
> yet they have answers.
Really? What *is* one divided by infinity?
> > > > Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be
> > > > unintelligible.
> > >
> > > Or that you want to believe that it is?
> >
> > No, I do not want to believe in square circles.
>
> Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using
> only geometric constructions.
Clever, but all you've done is shown that you can equivocate on
the meaning of words. Mighty impressive indeed.
> So if you are going to limit
> the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things
> are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly
> rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary
> boundaries you choose to adopt.
Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational
to an irrationalist. So what?
> > > > > Why do you say that it's unintelligible?
> > > >
> > > > Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its
> > > > own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible.
> > >
> > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-).
> >
> > As it does the human mind. 8-)
>
> Correct.
On such notions you can't even know that your reason is functioning
properly. You've reduced yourself to absurdity.
> > > Now you should get mine: it's unreasonable for you to expect
> > > everyone to adopt your assumptions, particularly if their
> > > asumptions are a subset of yours. 8-).
> >
> > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset
> > of assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility.
> > 8-)
>
> I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way,
> then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of
> anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold,
> so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely
> believe you can change other people's world views to coincide
> with your own.
No, I'm not so arrogant as to think that. Not even you have the
power to do that apart from an act of God.
Neal
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?20020911140623.A45696-100000>